0/ £dw>oru e\hpeM>
A SELECTIVE MICROFILM EDITION
PART IV
(1899-1910)
Thomas E. Jeffrey
Lisa Gitelman
Gregory Jankunis
David W. Hutchings
Leslie Fields
Theresa M. Collins
Gregory Field
Aido E. Salerno
Karen A. Detig
Lorie Stock
Robert Rosenberg
Director and Editor
Sponsors
Rutgers, The State University Of New Jersey
National Park Service, Edison National Historic Site
New Jersey Historical Commission
Smithsonian Institution
University Publications of America
Bethesda, MD
1999
Edison signature used with permission ofMcGraw-Edison Con
Thomas A. Edison Papers
at
Rutgers, The State University
endorsed by
National Historical Publications and Records Commission
18 June 1981
Copyright © 1999 by Rutgers, The State University
All rights reserved. No part ol this publication including any portion of the guide and index or of
the microfilm may be reproduced, stored hi a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any
means — graphic, electronic, mechanical, or chemical, includingphotocopying, recordingor taping,
or information storage and retrieval systems— without written permission of Rutgers, The State
University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
The original documents in this edition are from the archives at the Edison National Historic Site
at West Orange, New Jersey.
ISBN 0-89093-703-6
THOMAS A. EDISON PAPERS
Robert A. Rosenberg
Director ami Editor
Thomas E. Jeffrey
Associate Director and Coeditor
Paul B. Israel
Managing Editor, Book Edition
Helen Endick
Assistant Director for Administration
Associate Editors
Theresa M. Collins
Lisa Gitelman
Keith A. Nier
Research Associates
Gregory Jankunis
Lorie Stock
Assistant Editors
Louis Carlat
Aldo E. Salerno
Secretary
Grace Kurkowski
Student Assistants
Amy Cohen
Bethany Jankunis
Laura Konrad
Vishal Nayak
Jessica Rosenberg
Stacey Saelg
Wojtek Szymkowiak
Matthew Wosniak
BOARD OF SPONSORS
Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey
Francis L. Lawrence
Joseph J. Seneca
Richard F. Foley
David M. Oshinsky
New Jersey Historical Commission
Howard L. Green
National Park Service
John Maounis
Maryanne Gerbauckas
Roger Durham
George Tselos
Smithsonian Institution
Bernard Finn
Arthur P. Moiella
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
James Brittain, Georgia Institute of Technology
R. Frank Colson, University of Southampton
Louis Galambos, Johns Hopkins University
Susan Hockey, University of Alberta
Thomas Parke Hughes, University of Pennsylvania
Peter Robinson, Oxford University
Philip Scranton, Georgia Institute of Teclmology/Hagiey Museum and Library
Merritt Roe Smith, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTORS
PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
Tlie Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
Charles Edison Fund
The Hyde and Watson Foundation
National Trust for the Humanities
Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation
PUBLIC FOUNDATIONS
National Science Foundation
National Endowment for the
Humanities
National Historical Publications and
Records Commission
PRIVATE CORPORATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS
Alabama Power Company IMO Industries
Anonymous
AT&T
Atlantic Electric
Association of Edison Illuminating
Companies
Battelle Memorial Institute
The Boston Edison Foundation
Cabot Corporation Foundation, Inc.
Carolina Power & Light Company
Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, Inc.
Consumers Power Company
Cooper Industries
Corning Incorporated
Duke Power Company
Entergy Corporation (Middle South
Electric System)
Exxon Corporation
Florida Power & Light Company
General Electric Foundation
Gould Inc. Foundation
Gulf States Utilities Company
David and Nina Heitz
Hess Foundation, Inc.
Idaho Power Company
International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers
Mr. and Mrs. Stanley H. ICatz
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
Midwest Resources, Inc.
Minnesota Power
New Jersey Bell
New York State Electric & Gas
Corporation
Nortli American Philips Corporation
Philadelphia Electric Company
Philips Lighting B.V.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company
RCA Corporation
Robert Bosch GmbH
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation
San Diego Gas and Electric
Savannah Electric and Power Company
Scherhig-Plough Foundation
Texas Utilities Company
Thomas & Betts Corporation
Thomson Grand Public
Transamerica Deluvoi Inc.
Westinghouse Foundation
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation
A Note on the Sources
The pages which have been
filmed are the best copies
available. Every technical
effort possible has been
made to ensure legibility.
PUBLICATION AND MICROFILM
COPYING RESTRICTIONS
Reel duplication of the whole or of
any part of this film is prohibited.
In lieu of transcripts, however,
enlarged photocopies of selected
items contained on these reels
may be made in order to facilitate
research.
r
^■/£> J-6
petition.
Zo tbe Commissioner of [patents :
your petitioneri THOMAS A. EDISON, a oitizen of the United
States, residing at Llewellyn Park in the County of Ebbo* and
State of New Jersey, whose post offloe addrecsis Orange, Essex
County, New Jersey,
PRAYS THAT LETTERS PATENT MAY BE GRANTED TO HIM FOR THE
REVERSIBLE GALVANIC BATTERIES
IMPROVEMENT IN
I SPECIFICATION.
0 ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
3e It known that I, THOMAS A. EDISON, a citizen of
le United States, residing at Llewellyn Park in the County
’ Essex and State of New Jersey, have invented a certain
sw and useful IMPROVEMENT IN REVERSIBLE GALVANIC BATTERIES
!ase No. 1056), of which the following is a specification:
My invention relates to improvements in reversible
so-called storage batteries, and my object is to produce
reversible galvanic cell of great permanency and of re-
rkably light weight per unit of energy.
In my application for Letters Patent filed October
3t., 1900, Serial No. 34,994, I describe an improved re-
rsible galvanic cell wherein the metals cadmium and copper
3 employed as the elements in an alkaline electrolyte, and
means of which I secured a very permanent cell, one
srein the Initial and final states of the electrolyte are
! same, and finally one which was capable of storing a
iater amount of energy per pound of cell than batteries
imerc tally used before that time.
My present invention is designed to further lighten
weight of the cell in comparison to the stored energy,
to deliver the energy to the exterior circuit at a high-
rate .
In the alkaline zincate type of battery as coramer-
Lly used, so far as I know, copper oxide has heretofore
i used exclusively as the oxygen-furnishing element when
battery is discharged, the copper being reduced to the
illio state. The only other elements which have been
suggested and would be available as substitutes for copper
in these batteries, have been those lower in the electro¬
lytic series, such as mercury and silver, but so far as I
know, these metals have not been satisfactorily oricommer-
cially utilized on account of the difficulties arising from
their application in alkaline electrolytes as well as be¬
cause of their expense, especially in regard to silver,
which metal possesses the further disadvantage of being
quite soluble in the electrolyte, when subjected to oxida¬
tion.
I have sought, by a great many experiments, for an
element or compound capable of being used in an alkaline
electrolyte, whose heat of formation of its oxide should
be as low or lower than that of mercury, and in this I have
been successful, the result being the discovery of an ele¬
ment for furnishing the oxygen to the oxidizable element on
Es charge with even greater freedom than oxide of mercury,
ile at the same time the new element is less expensive,
of less weight, is of greater permanency, and finally is
of greater insolubility in the electrolyte. I have also
sought, by experiment, for an element superior to cadmium
as the oxidizable element on discharge, with the objects in
view of further reducing the weight and cost of thenell,
and I have discovered an element for the purpose possessing
these desirable characteristics. As a result, a reversi¬
ble galvanic cell equipped with the new elements is of great
permanence, is relatively light and inexpensive, and is of
great power. These elements are, as stated, preferably
used in the same, cell, but obviously the oxygen-furnishing
sleraent may be employed in connection with, other oxidizable
elements , while the new oxidizable element may be employed
in connection with other oxygen-furnishing elements.
The elements are
alsfl. .preferably oarried or support-
Ied by hollow perforated plates, forming receptacles or pock¬
ets, which are illustrated in the accompanying drawings form¬
ing part of this specification and in which figure 1 is a
face view of one of the plates hawing three pockets or re¬
ceptacles, showing the front wall partly broken away; fig¬
ure 2 is a section on the line 2—2 of figure 1; figure 3
is a plan, showing two of the plates forming a single com¬
bination; and figure 4 an enlarged detailed section.
In all of the above views, corresponding parts are
represented by the same numerals of reference.
Each plate is formed with two walls 1 and 2 con¬
structed preferably of a single continuous sheet made pref¬
erably of very thin sheet nickel, say about .005 of an inch
in thickness, and bent at its bottom around a horizontal
frame 3 from which extend:, the vertical spacing frames 4, 4,
to all of which frames the sheet is secured by means of
nickel rivets, as shown, to form a strong, rigid, hollow
plate with pockets or receptacles between the vertical frames
14, 4. The walls 1 and 2 of the plate, as shown, are per¬
forated with small holes arranged very closely together and
each about .015 of an inch in diameter. I prefer to, use
nickel in the construction of the plates, since that metal
is not oxidizable by electric oxidation in an alkaline so¬
lution. Iron, on the other hand, is slightly oxidized un¬
der these conditions and is not so desirable, but if very
carefully and perfectly plated with nickel, it may be used
satisfactorily for the construction of either the plates or
the frames. Obviously the frames 3 and 4 may be, and in
some instances preferably are, constructed of hard rubber
or other inert material, to which the perforated sheet is
riveted, as explained. Secured to one or both of the sides
of the plate are a number of insulated spacing blocks 5, 5,
I to prevent adjacent plates from touching when immersed in
the electrolyte.
In the manufacture of my :
r oxidizable element for
use in a rever Bible galvanic cella r first preferably take
monosulphide of iron and reduce it by a crushing operation
until the particles thereof may be passed through a screen
having about 40,000 openings per square inoh, and I inti¬
mately mix about eight parts by weight of the powdered mono¬
sulphide with about two parts by weight of flake graphite
of a size considerably larger than the perforations in the
wallB of the pockets or receptacles. Pinks graphite be¬
ing exceedingly thin and of large area gives. an extensive
conducting surface in proportion to its bulk and weight.
This mixture is then moistened with a twenty-percent solu¬
tion of potasslo hydroxide, and the dampened mass is paoked
into the pockets or receptacles of the proper plates by a
suitable tamping tool. Owing to the want of flexibility
of the graphite, the mixture paokB to a hard porpue mass.'
The effect of electrolytic gassing therefore does not dis¬
integrate the mass as a whole When properly compressed,
x,
^After eaoh pocket or reoeptaole has been, tightly paoked
with the mass almost to its top, a wad of, asbestos fiber 6
about a quarter of an inoh in thickness is introduced into-
the pocket or reoeptaole above the mass, and on top of this
packing is placed a strip of sheet niokel 7 entirely cover¬
ing the asbestos and filling the mouth of the pooket, which,
atrip is permanently Beoured in position by niokel wireB 8
threaded through the openings near the top of the pooket,
as shown particularly in figure 2. The element thus form¬
ed iS subjected to. electrolytic oxidization in a solution
of potassio hydroxide, whereby sulphur will be set free/and
combining with the alkali forms a sulphide of potassium:;
which diffuses out of the mass, while the iron ie converted
to a ferrous oxide thereof. This diffusion of the alka¬
line sulphide out of the plate is hastened and facilitated
hy subjecting the contents of the plate to alternate oxidiza¬
tion and reduction by alternately reversing the oxidizing
ourrent, and by several of these operations the whole of the
Bulphur will be. eliminated and the element will be ready
for use after the iron haB been reduced to the.metallio
state. Since iron does not decompose water, there will
obviously be no loool action between it and the graphite.
The oxide formed from the sulphide increases in bulk, and
being intermediately mixed with the graphite, produces oon?
siderable pressure on the walls of the plate, which prevents
any disturbance of the initial state of the mass even when
it is subjected to strong gassing within the pores by over¬
charging the element electrioally. The object of using the
monosulphide is to secure the greatest amount of iron oxide
in the smallest space and in a form oapable of being reduced
to the metallic state eleotrolytioally.
My attempts to utilize iron as the oxidizable ele¬
ment in an alkaline reversible battery were for a long time-',;
frustrated by the facts, determined only after., exhaustive1
experiments, that dried oxides of iron were not reducible
to any extent by the ourrent; that spongy iron reduoed by
hydrogen from different iron Balts was not oxidizable t0
considerable extent by the current; that the hydrates of
iron were very bulky and difficult of use without drying, fJ
which operation off eoted some obscure ohange therein to
render them nearly inert in the presence of the reduo ing.
current; that bulky ferric oxide was hot oapable of any
considerable reduction by the ourrent; and finally that
ferrous oxide though easily reducible was very diffiouli to^
“P- . ■ 'hM I
I prepare on aooount of atmoBpherio oxidation. The formation
of the ferrous oxide In the first inBtanoe within the pock-
.e.tB_or._reoeptacleB did away with the objections due to the
bulk of the hydrates, while the oxide thus formed is per¬
fectly reducible by the ourront. Instead of forming the
oxide in this way by oxidizing the monosulphide in an alka¬
line solution, it v/ill be obvious that |salts of iron, like
ferrous ohloride, may be paoked with the graphite and when
plaoed in on alkaline solution form ohloride of the alkali
and ferrous oxide of iron, the alkaline ohloride. diffusing
out of the mass. The results, however, are not ed good os
when the sulphide of iron is used, since the quantity of
finely divided iron produoed thereby is considerably less'
and is also less porous, offering therefore a reduced op¬
portunity for the solution to penetrate the maSB, and low-
ering in oonsequenoe its current-conductingcapacity. Met¬
allic iron, even when finely divided as produoed by electro-
lytio reduotion, does not of itself oxidize in solutions of
the fixed aikalies, and the oxide of iron is not appreciably
soluble. Compact, dense, or non-porous iron, i.. e. iron
having relatively large partioles, when Bubjeoted to a
powerful electrolytic oxidation, forms a soluble ferrate of
the alkali and dissolves in the electrolyte. On the other
hand, finely divided iron obtained as described, when sub¬
jected to eleotrolytio oxidation, does not form a soluble
ferrate but 1b oonverted into the insoluble ferrous oxide.
My improved oxidizable element is therefore absolutely per¬
manent, so that in the operation of the battery, the elec¬
trolyte is not ohanged at any stage of the working, and ab¬
solutely no deterioration of the iron element takes plaoe. / >
Having described the advantages and characteristics
of, and the preferred manner of making, the oxidizable ele-
-6-
ment, reference will now be made to the preferred oxygen-
furniehing or storing element of the cell.
I have discovered by experiment that the lower
oxides of nickel and oobalt, when in contact with a conduct¬
or in an alkaline solution, oan be almost wholly raised
from the lower to a higher stage of oxidation eleotrolyti-
cally and that those, higher oxides revert to a lower stage
by reduction with extreme 'case, and availing myself of this
fact, I have constructed an oxygen-storing element capable
of greater capacity, of less we ight , and of higher perma-
nenoe than any electrode for the purpose which, so far as 1
know, has heretofore been applied. Neither the oxide of
niokel nor of oobalt is appreciably soluble in an alkaline
electrolyte, and both niokel and oobalt give nearly the some
voltage in use, but slnoe nickel' is less expensive than co¬
balt, I prefer to use the former element for the purpose.
The preferred process of making the oxygen-storing
element consists in first preoipitatlng either the monoxide
or black hydrated dioxide of the metal, say niokel, in the
usual way, washing the preoipitate free from the products
of the reaction, filtering off the liquid and drying the
preoipltatqi The resulting dried hydrated oxide is then
powdered very fine and is ready for use. Either oxide may
be used with the same results. The process above outlined
applies to cobalt as well as to niokel. About seven
parts by weight of the finely powdered hydrate and three
parts by weight of flake graphite are then intimately mixed,
and moistened with a small quantity of a strong solution .of
potass i'o hydroxide so as to dampen the mass, whioh is then
Inserted in the pockets. or reooptaoles of the proper plates
in small quantities at a time and thoroughly tamped at e&oh
accession. Finally the mass : Is oovered with' a layer of
'' -7-- ' V'
asbestos, held in plaoe by a plate of nickel secured in
position by niokel wires, as I have described in explaining
the makeup of the oxidizable element. The plates, the
pookets of whioh are thus supplied with the mixture of the
hydrated oxide and graphite, are then immersed in a solu¬
tion of potasslo hydroxide in water and Bubjeated for a con¬
siderable time, to an oxidizing current of about fifty milam-
peres per square inch of surface, during whioh the oxide is
either raised to a higher stage of oxidation than the black
oxide HigOg or else aots as an absorber of oxygen in some
manner unknown to me. "Whatever the action may be, the oxide
so treated acts as a most efficient oxygen-storing element
for commercial use in a galvanic battery.
The object of employing graphite, which iB not af¬
fected by electrolytic oxidation, is to offer a great ex¬
tent of surfaoe against whioh the whole of the oxide is in
oontaot, a large conducting surface being necessary sinoe
the eleotrolytic reduction and oxidation for praotioal pur¬
poses only extend a small distance from the conducting sur¬
faoe against whioh the oxide is in oontaot. This is ad¬
mirably effected by the use of graphite in its. mioaoeous
fora, the proportions indicated being Buoh as to practical¬
ly insure that the eleotrolytic aotion need not penetrate a
greater diBtanoe from the oontaot surfaoe than the thick¬
ness of a single particle of the powdered oxide. Further¬
more* there is no local aotion between the nickel or oobalt
oxides and the graphite.
The reason Why niokel hydrate is preferably used in¬
stead of other compounds of nickel, is that the metal itself,
when finely divided (as obtained by reducing a niokel com¬
pound by hydrogen or electrolysis), is not oxidisable to
any considerable extent when subjected to eleotrolytlo oxi-
iation in an alkaline solution. The sulphide of nickel is
not decomposed by eleotrolyBis under the conditions of bat¬
tery v/ortc, and the sulphide of cobalt only imperfectly;
tienoe the hydrates are the moBt available compounds for use,
aince they do not become inert to the same extent as hy¬
drates of the oxides of iron after drying, they are easily
prepared, and by absorbing the solution they swell within
the pooketB or receptaoles so as to insure Intimate contact
and stability. During the charging of the cell, the ab¬
sorption of oxygen by the oxide of niokel or cobalt causes
the oxide to further swell and bulge the pookets or recep¬
taoles outwardly, and on discharge a proportionate contrac¬
tion takes place. In order that the walls of tho pockets
or receptacles my always maintain the desirable intimate
contact with the active material, tho pookets are as stated
made of some highly elastio metal, such as hard rolled Bhoet
niokel, so that at eaoh contraction of the mass the pocket
walls will by their elasticity keep in oontact therewith.
I am aware that in British patent Ho. 15,370 of
1899 to Miohalowaky, the patentee suggestsiin a zino alkali
storage battery, the use of the anhydrous black oxide of
niokel (HigOj) as a depolarizer, and describes prooesses
for making the same by heat reactions. I have ascertained
by experiment that the prooeBses so suggested are inopera¬
tive, and that the oxide sought for, if obtained, would be
ineffective for the purpose. The black oxide of niokel
(HlgOg) obtained in any manner known to me does not of it¬
self act as a depolarizer to any extent with aino in a rever¬
sible galvanic battery using an alkaline solution, as the
patentee state*; and when this oxide is formed by heat re¬
actions, X find that when subjected to ole otrloal oxidation
to raise it to a higher state or to alter its oapooity for
I assorting oxygen, it ie nearly inert, and does not absorb oxlr.
gen to any practical extent like the- hydrated oxides.
Having constructed the two elements of the battery
as above explained, they are preferably utilized together
in a solution of twenty-five percent of potassio hydroxide
in water, and the ooll ie ready for ubo, the iron being in
metallic fora and the niokel or cobalt oxide raised to its
higher stage.
Owing to several obsoure roaotlons which take plaoe
when the battery is discharged, and also to a change of re-
sistanoe within the electrodes, the voltage is Variable,
but the average voltage over the whole disoharge is about
1 volt, rising as high as 1.32 volts and sometimes higher
when freshly charged.
Ify improved battery oan be over-charged, fully dis¬
charged, or even reversed and charged in the opposite direc¬
tion without any injury. Over-gassing does not disturb
the initial state of the materials in the pookets, all the
ingredients are insoluble, the supporting plates are unat-
taoked by electrolytic oxidation, and the whole operation
is independent of the strength of the solution, so that the
battery is of great permanenoe, while at the same time more
energy will be stored per unit of weight than with any per-
nanent praotioal combination heretofore suggested.
I have oonBtruoted a battery as above described
tfiloh gives an available storage capacity of one horse
power hour for 73 pounds weight, but it may be made lighter
rithout destroying its permanent oharaoter.
The specific magnetio metals are iron, niokel and
>obalt.
By- the express ion"oxide of a specific magnetic met-
a other than iron" as employed in my olaias, I mean oxide-
it niokel, oxide of cobalt or a combination of such, oxides.
ly the use of that expression it is my purpose to embrace
-10-
and include ganerioally both of these utillzable oxides,
but I shall also specifically elate oxide of nickel heroin,
aud will specifically elate oxide of cobalt in a separate
concurrent application.
Having now described my invention, what I elate as
new and desire to secure by Letters Patent is us follows
1. An active element f or an alkaline reversible
ft-' c iHsi. '
galvanic battery, comprising on-elcotrode and a hydrated
oxide of & specific magnetic metal other than iron carried
<■
by said electrode, substantially as set forth,
3. An active element for an alkalihe reversible,
gal vail io battery, comprising an-eleotro'de, aT. hydrated oxide
of a specific magnetic metal other than iron carried by said
5v^>-A-
-eieotrode, and an inert conducting material intimately
mixed with said oxide, substantially as set forth,
3. An active element for on alkaline reversible
galvanic battery, comprising aivlelectrofe, a' hydrated oxide
of a specific magnetic metal other than iron carried by said
e-leetrode, and flake graphite intimately mixed with said
oxide, substantially as set forth.
4. An RCtive element for an alkaline reversible
galvanic battery, comprising en-oiectrode and an oxide of
nickel carried thereby having when charged nlootrolytioally
more oxygen than Hi20a, substantially as set forth,
6. An active clement for an alkaline reversible
galvanic battery, comprieing ran-aleo$od#^an^oxide of niok-
el carried thereby having when- oharged- olootrolytloaHy
more oxygen than HigOg, and an inert conducting material
intimately mixed with said oxide, substantially as set fortji
6. An active eloment for an alkaline reversible
galvanic battery, comprising ^-ele otrode/'^ox i de of niok-
-11-
el oarried thereby having when charged eleotrolytloally
more oxygen than NigO^ ,and flake graphite intimately mixed
with said oxide, substantially as sot forth.
¥. An active element for an alkaline reversible
galvanic battery, oompr islng -an-eleotrode and a hydrated
oxide of nickel carried thereby, substantially as set forth.
0. An aotive element for an alkaline reversible
galvanic battery, comprising an-oleo-trode, a hydrated oxide
of nickel carried thereby, and an inert conducting material
intimately mixed with said hydrated oxide, substantially as
set forth.
9. An aotive element for an alkaline reversible
galvanic battery, o ompr is in g 'an -oleo-tr ode , a hydrated oxide
of: nickel carried thereby, and flake graphite intimately
mixed with said oxide, substantially as set forth.
/ 10. An aotive oxidizable element for an alkaline
reversible galvanic battery, comprising an-eleo-trode and
ei^cS rtf i tfii
eleotrolytloally aotivs, finely divided iron carried thereby,
substantially asset forth.
, oitUTK .
'■>* fs An element for /an alkaline reversible galvanic
rrrr,i‘ »' •’> ■ ^
battery, con® rising an- electrode- and finely divided ferrous
■*£. rtf ■*. o
oxide Carried thereby, substantially as ‘set forth.
, . *4^ , .
' ' r\ 12. An aotive^ oxidizable element for an alkaline
rovers iblo galvanic battery, comprising -an electrode- and an
oxide of iron Carried thereby eleotrolytloally reducible to
1-U-faisA.
the metallic state, substantially as set forth.
i alkaline
‘ 13. In a reversible galvanic battery,
electrolyte, -an-oleotrode carrying finely divided iron; whan
charged, and another elootrede carrying an oxide of a spec¬
ific 'magnetic metal other than iron and- capable of furnish¬
ing oxygen > for the oxidation oft- the iron on, discharge, sub¬
stantially as set for th.
•J4". In a reversible* galvanic 'battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, au-elootrode carrying finely divided oxide of
iron when discharged, and another eiee^ed© carrying on ox-
ide of a speciflo magnetic metal other than iron and capable
of storing oxygen on charging, substantially as set forth,
Jr5; In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline
eleotrolyte, aa-eleotrode carrying finely divided iron when
charged, another -eleo-trode oarrying an oxide of a specif io
magnetic metal other than iron and capable of furnishing
oxygen for the oxidation of the iron on discharge, and an in ■
ert conducting material intimately mixed with said oxide,
substantially as set forth.
■£6. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, •en-eietrfcrode oarrying finely divided iron when
is*
charged, another -eletrfcrode- oarrying an oxide of a epeoif io
magnetic metal other than iron and oapable of furnishing
oxygen for the oxidation of the iron on discharge, and flake
graphite intimately mixed with said oxide, substantially as
set forth,
£7. In a reversible galvanio battery, an alkaline
eleotrolyte, an-eleetrod« oarrying finely divided iron when
charged, an inert conducting material intimately mixed with
said finely divided iron, an o carrying an ox¬
ide of a speoifio magnetic metal other than iron oapable of
furnishing oxygen for the oxidation of the iron on discharge,
and an inert conducting material mixed with said, oxide, sub¬
stantially as set forth.
/jiff. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline
eleotrolyte, -an-ol-oetrode oarrying finely .divided iron
when ohargedi flake graphite intimately mixed with
said finely divided .iron, another •eOwfcMdjL oarrying ah ox¬
ide of a speoifio .magnetic metal other than iron oapable of
-13-
furnishing oxygen for the oxidation of the Iron on discharge,
and flake graphite mixed with 3aid oxide, substantially as
set forth.
. • -'j In u reversible galvanio battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, an-ol-ootrodo carrying finely divided iron when
charged, and another ©icetsode carrying oxide of nickel capa¬
ble of furnishing oxygen for the oxidation of the iron on
disoharge, substantially as set forth.
/ 20-. In a reversible galvanio battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, an-deotroda carrying finely divided oxide of
iron when discharged, and another -oie-otrocUj carrying ah ox¬
ide of nickel, substantially as set forth.
-21. In a reversible galvanio battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, an-eiectrode oarrying finely divided iron when
charged, and another electrode carrying oxide of nickel
having when charged eleotrolytioaily more oxygen than tfigOg,
substantially as set forth.
-£$. In a reversible galvanio battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, an electrode oarrying finely divided iron when
olmrged, and another oleotro3» oarrying a hydrated oxide of
nickel, substantially as set forth.
\> '■ , 23- In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, an olooti-odo carrying finely divided iron when
charged, another electrode oarrying oxide of nickel capable
of furnishing oxygen for the oxidation of the iron on dis¬
charge, and flake graphite intimately mixed with said oxide,
substantially as set forth.
■ ' O 24; In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, an-e loo tends carrying finely divided oxide of
iron when diBoharged, another -e4ee4«^oarrying an oxide
of nickel, and flake graphite intimately mixed with said ox-
ids, substantially as set forth.
-14-
■@8. In a reversible galvanio battery, an alka-
Un© eleotrolyit, an- ©Retrod© carrying finely divided iron
C<r 1^-^*
imen charged, another ■e-leojtr«de oarrying oxide of nickel
naving when oharged eleotrolytioally more oxygen than NigOg,
uid flake graphite intimately mixed with said oxide, sub-
Jtantially as set forth.
26. In a reversible galvanio battery, an alkaline
Cl C<n- -cd •
ileotrolyte, an-eioctrede carrying finely divided iron when
iharged, another eie'e4r^r’oarrying a hydrated oxide of
liokel, and flake graphite intimately mixed with said oxide,
mbstantially as set forth.
fiSt. --An active element for an alkaline reversible
;alvanio battery, comprising a perf orated^receptaole having
slastio walls and an active material therein engaged by said
rails with an elastic pressure, substantially as Bet forth.
26. An aotive element for an alkaline reversible
cal vanio battery, comprising a perforated^receptacle having
>lastio walls and an oxide of a Bpeoifio magnetic metal oth-
ir than iron in Bald receptacle, said oxide being capable of
burnishing oxygen eleotrolytioally upon diaoharge, substan-
;ially as set forth. v
29. An aotive element for an alkaline reversible
;alvan.io battery, comprising a perfor^ed'^reoeptaole having
< lastio walls and an oxide of niokel carried thereby and. 'having
vhen oharged eleotrolytioally more oxygen than Hi^Og, sub-
i tantially as sat forth.
30. An aotive element for an alkaline reversible
jalvanio battery, comprising a p erforated^ra'cep taole haying
ilastio walls and a hydrated oxide of niokel carried by said
•ecap taole and engaged by said walls with an olastio pres¬
sure, substantially as set forth.
-15-
|jol© otrolyte, an aotivo Material therein which in oharging
discharging is alternately increased or decreased in
Iulk, a perforated receptacle holding the material and hav-
ng elastic mils which at all times engage the material,
ith an elastio pressure, and ano th^r 'S^SIrede drying a
ifferent active material, substantially an set forth.
hattory> m alkaline
sleotrolyte, -an-e±eojode carrying finely divided iron when
harged, another -eleotrede 'hav ing" anTHf ox-
■ : de of a speoif ic magnetic metal other than iron carried
rithin said receptacle and engaged hy the walls thereof with
«n elastic pressure, said oxide being capable of furnishing
ncygen f of the oxidation of the iron on discharge, substan-
1 ially as Bet forth.
’ - ' Sttlvauio battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, aai-elec^rode carrying finely divided oxide of
iron whan discharged, anoth^Tei^^^''ti^ising a recep¬
tacle having elastic walls, and an oxide of a speoif io mag-
natid metal other than iron carried within said reoeptaolc
* ld en«aS3d hy the walls with an elastio pressure and eapa-
hLe of storing oxygen on oharging, suhstantially as set
fprth. •
Sd. ln;a reversible galvanic cell employing on al-
kiline eleotrolyte, an active material therefor and flake
glaphite intimately mixed therewith, substantially aB set
.forth.
-16-
| Thi“ *>3?° oif ioab.lcn signed and wif
| Witness^
X. )z£t
State of
County of
)
: #J3.
) •
3 A. EDISON, the above named petitioner, being
j duly awora, deposes and says that he Is a oitlaen of the
Jnited States, and a resident of Llewellyn Park in the Coun-
ty of Essex and State' of New Jersey; that he verily toeV
lieves himself to he the' original, first and sole inventor
Of tho IMPROVEMENT Xli REVERSIBLE GALVANIC BATTERISS de-
j oorihed and claimed in the .annexed speoifloatioto; that he
does not know and does. not believe that the same was aver
known or used before hia invention or discovery thereof;
or patented or described' in any printed publication in the
| United States of America or anyf’oreign country, before his
invention or discovery thereof ».>f more than two years prior
to '.this application} or in public uso or on sale, in the
• | United States for more than two years prior to thiB appli-
j cation, and that no application; .for foreign patent has 'tjfen
filed by him or hia legal representatives or assigns in any
foreign country, except aB follows: Great Britain, Prance,
Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Ipain, Belgium, Italy, Hun-
|| gary, Sweden and Russia, all filed Pebruary 5, 1901, but as
yet none of said patents have issued,
xJ
8 worn to and Bubscribedwbofore me this
of Pebruary 1901,
Notary Public.
(Seal)
2—tiM.
United States Patent Office,
Apr. 2, 1901.
Thoms A. Edison,
Care Dyer, Edmonds & Dyer,
31 Has sail St.,
*»*• !T- y- CA . no, --
NS* t K.*» '/
Plenee find below a eommunUmtim, from the EXAMINER in: charg^ofyour a,,/dieation.
Ho. 49,453, filed Mar. 1, 1901, -"Reversible Galvanic Battery".
F. I. Allen,
It is suggested that the words conducting support be sub¬
stituted for "electrode" in claims TT~%, 3, 4, FT~S, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
U
Claim 51 is objected to as being indistinct and functional
in the words "a stable electrolyte^'An active material therein
vhich in charging or discharging is alternately increased 6r
decreased in bulk".
The claims in this case are censidered to cover three in¬
dependent inventions: (1) an active element composed of an oxide
of magnetic metal other than iron, covered by claims 1, 2, 3,
4, ,5’j 6:, 7-.j 8:j 9, 28, 29, 30; (2) an active element composed of
finely divided iron, covered by claim 10; (3) a receptacle for
containing active material, covered by claim 27. The claims
' which : include both active elements may be classed under either
group 1 or 2. As to claims 11 and 12, in which finely divided
ferrous oxide or an oxide of iron^electrolytically reducible to
the metallic state is claimed? "These claims are either the
same as claim 10 or they cover a different invention from that
covered by claim 10. The active material should be specified
in the same manner in each of these claims. The same criticism
I
49,453 - 2.
Claim 4 is rejected upon:
BgjJii-sh-iafiP., -gfili _ 5, 1887, Abel, (Batt ., Sec .) ;
^ British 15,370, July 26, 1899, JIicholo7/sky, (Batt ., Sec .) .
This -claim is considered to be broad enough to cover the use
of 3Ti203 as the active agent tKXxxt since the words "when
charged elect, roly tically" refer to only one condition of the
battery if it is desired to cove'- the nickel oxide containing
more oxygen than IH2 O3 it should be specifically so claimed.
CJLaim 5 is rejected upon Abel, and Kicholowsky taken in
connection withf
/ U. S. 274, ll(rf 20, 1883, DeLalande, (Batt ., 1-fl ., Zn. , Oxides) ;
British 15, 880*r<Aug. 23, 1895, Jungner, (Batt ., Sec .) .
Claims 10, 11, 12 are each rejected upon DeLalande, above
cited.
Claims 1$: 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 32, 33 are each rejected
upon DeLalande taken in connection \vith Abel and Kicholowskv,
cited.
Claims 27 and 31 are rejected upon DeLalande and:
, 0. S. 619,885. Beb. 21. .1899, Hamilton, (Batt. , 1-fl. , ?,n. , Oxides) ,
and:
/ British 7892, Apr. 14, 1899, Jungner, (Batt-, , Sec. ) .
Claims 28, 29 are rejected upon the references cited
against claim 27, taken in connection with Abel and Micholowsky,
above cited.
In advance of further action upon Jrhe merits the claims
must be limited to a single invention.
Jix'r Div. 3.
SERIES OF 1900.
Department of the Interior,
=, aa
7) '4^'9^W
/ / '^mmr
3 I have to acknowledge the receipt of the petition, specification, oath, and, 3
o ' B
" | drawing of your alleged Improvement in _ _ _ J
1- . _ . . UL^M. QULE. • . 5
S with Fifteen Dollars as the first fee payable thereon . * |
^ The papers are duly filed, and your application for a patent will be taken I
“ up for examination in its order _ _ _ _ _ 1
g You will be duly advised of the examination.
V.ill be taken up for “
ion in abouWmF montlw.jg'
C.
‘ _ <2? <2/
Commissioner of Patents. g
No application is considered ns complete, nor ta
furnished in duo form by tho inventor or applicant.
nplete, nor oan an j official action bo had thereon, until all ita parts, os here specified, or
THOMAS A. EDISON
REVERSIBLE GALVANIC BATTERIES
PILED MARCH 1, 1901
SERIAL NO. 49,433
: EXAMINER'S I
HON. COMMISSIONER. OP PATENTS,
SIR:-
Jn the abQTe -entitled applioatioh the fol¬
lowing amendment is submitted: -
Claim 1, line 2, erase "an electrode* and substitute
- a conducting support - i line 4, erase “electrode*
and substitute — — support - — .
Claim 2, line 8, erase "an eleotrode" and substitute
- -a conducting support-- - ; line 4, erase "electrode"
and substitute - support _ -.
Claim 3, line 2, erase "an electrode" and substitute
- a conducting support - ; line 4, erase "electrode"
and substitute - support-- - -.
Claim 4, line 2, erase "an eleotrode" and substitute
- a conducting support - ; line 3, erase "when charged
eleotrolytioally".
Claim 5, lino 2, erase "an eleotrode" and substitute
- a conducting support——; lino 3, erase "when charged
eleotrolytioally".
Claims 6, 7, j5j and 9;;: line 2, of eaoh, erase "an
electrode" and substitute —a conducting, support _
Claim 10, line 2, erase “an eleotrode" and substi¬
tute —a conducting support——; line 3, after "there¬
by" insert - and capable of being oxidized on discharg¬
ing - y.
Claim 11, line 1, before "element" insert - — aotive
deoxidizabl* - j lino 2, nm« "an electrode" and sub¬
stitute - -a conducting support — --} lino 3, after
" the reby" insert - and capable of being deoxidized on
charging.
Claim 12, line 2, erase "an electrode" and substi-
tute — —a conduoting support — - — } line 4, after "Btate"
insert - upon charging -
Claim 13, line 2, erase "an eleotrode" and substi¬
tute — —a conducting support - ; line 3, erase "elec¬
trode" and substitute - conduoting support-- — .
Claims 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 23, 24,
25 and 26, line 2 of each, ernee "an electrode" and substi¬
tute - — -a conduoting support- - .
Claims 14, 15 and 16, line 3 of each} claims 17 and
18, line 4 of each} claims 19, 2Q, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and
26, line 3 of eaoh} erase "eleotrode" and substitute — —
conducting support - .
Claims 27, 28, 29 and 30, line 2 of eaoh, before
"receptacle" insert — - — oonduoting - .
Claim 31, line 1, erase "stable" and substitute — -
suitable - ; line 4, before "reoeptaole" insert - -
oonduoting - j line 6, erase "eleotrode" and substitute
—oonduoting support - .
Claim 32, line 2, erase "an oleotrode" and substi¬
tute - a oonduoting support- — line 3, erase "elec¬
trode" and substitute - -oonduoting support comprising a
reoeptaole- —
Claim 35, line 2, erase "an eleotrode* and substi¬
tute - - a oonduoting support- - } line 3, erase "elec¬
trode" and -substitute - — conducting support — - — .
We note that the Examined suggests division between
the claims on the. active, materials . We submit that in sug-
-2-
geating a reversible oell wherein iron ia enployed as one
of the active materials and oxide of niokel or cobalt ao the
other active material, applicant has produced a combination
which io unique and of greater value than any other combina¬
tion heretofore suggested, and by means of which a practical
storage battery is produaed which is especially adapted for
vehicle traction. Lead batteries as now used deteriorate
enormously when subjected to suoh use, and are far too heavy
to be commercially aoceptable. In fact, it appears from
recent newspapers that two transportation oomranies, in
Illinois and Now England, have liquidated and gone out of
business for this reason. All of the alkaline zinoate type
of batteries, while less in weight than lead batteries,
have, lip to the time of applicant’s experiments in this art,
even a greater deterioration, on aooount of the failure of
prior experimenters to disoover a metal whioh oan be plated
out of the solution in a sufficiently coherent form as to be
practicable. Hence it is necessary to find some metal whidi
oan be oxidised and reduced in alkaline solutions and whose
oxide shall be insoluble therein. Magnesium is light, but
it cannot be used, since its oxide ia not reducible, while,
its greatoexpens* would be further objectionable. Aluminum,
while cheap and light, oannot bo employed, sinoe its oxide
is soluble in the alkaline solution, and furthermore it
could not be plated back even if its oxide did not dissolve.
Manganese is also economical and of light weight, but it de¬
composes in the solution spontaneously and hence is useless.
Cadmium can be employed, as applicant describes in pendlhg
applications, but the supply of this metal is. quite restrict¬
ed and its price is high. Niokel oould not be reduced to
the metallic state, although cheap and light, and if it
6ould be used, its voltage would be lower than that of iron* ,
The name is true of cohalt, who. oh however la relatively ex¬
pensive. Tin is out of the question, as Its oxide is also
soluble. The oxides of antimony are also soluble * their
atomio weight high, and even if such oxides could he used,
the voltage would he less than that of iron. head also can¬
not he used, since its oxide is soluble. Copper could he
employed, hut its voltage would he very low. The only
available metals which o.an be used for the purpose are there¬
fore cadmium, iron and oopper. The voltage derived from
Qadmium and iron is about the same, while that from copper
Is vory much lower. Cadmium is expons ive , scarce, and re¬
quires four times the weight of iron. But the voltages
even of iron and cadmium are very low, and a perfectly sat¬
isfactory battery as to weight could not he scoured with the
usual depolarizers which were available prior to applicant’s
invention, of which oopper oxide and mercuric oxide are prac¬
tically the only examples. Copper oxide used as a depol¬
arizer with iron or cadmium gives only about .45 of a volt;
it Is cheap and light, but the low voltage necessitates a
large increase cf weight. Mercuric oxide employed as a de¬
polarizer with iron or cadmium gives about .85 to .90 of a
volt, but its weight and expense are also high. But by the
use of nickel or cobalt oxide when in a state higher than
SfigOg or CqgOg, the voltage of the iron or cadmium is raised
up to about 1.38 volts, and as nickel and oobalt have a low
atomic weight, the combination gives a greater energy per
E>dund with a higher voltage than any known combination in
alkaline solutions heretofore suggested, exclusive of suoh
satteries where a plating out of the solution Is employed;
and the pries per watt hour relative to the weight is lower
than any combination now known. It seems therefore that
>y the use of iron, with its cheapness and lightness, in j
combination with nickel or cobalt, and particularly the for¬
mer, with its oho apneas, l.t china as and high voltage, a
unique battery io produced possessing advantages never be¬
fore known. We believe therefore that the claims present
an instance of a true combination of cooperating elements,
and we hope that the Examiner will not insist upon his re¬
quirement for division.
So far as claim 27 is concerned, the purpose of that
claim tis only to cover the use of an active material in a
reoeptaole having elastic walls in language which will em¬
brace the genus of applicant's invention. The Examiner
does not object to suoh of the claims aB cover the employ¬
ment of a specific magnetic metal other than iron enclosed
in a receptacle having elastic walls, so that W6 do not see
the strict necessity of dividing on the lines of a claim '
which oovers the Bams invention in generic terms.
With reference to claim 10, it is to ho observed
that said olaim oovers as broadly, as possible "electrolyti-
cally aotlve finely divided iron" as the oxidizable element
of an alkaline storage battery, the claim aBBuming the ele¬
ment to be in a charged condition.
Claim 11 covers "finely divided ferrous oxide", the
assumption being that the element is in a discharged condi¬
tion. We do not know whether it is the practice to claim
active elements both in their charged and discharged condi¬
tions, but we see no objection to suoh a practice, since it
does not make the claims obscure, while the protection af¬
forded thereby would be increased.
So far as tho 12th olaim is concerned, it is some¬
what broader than tho 11th in not being limited to ferrous
oxide, and is designed to be commensurate with the 10th
claim as covering any iron oxide which is "elaotrolytioally
' • I
reducible to the metallic state upon charging".
We have amended claims 4 and 8 by erasing the words
"when oharged electrolytically", so that each of said olaims
is now limited to "an oxide of nickel * * • having more
oxygen than Ni203". In other words, each of these claims,
covers the depolarizer in a charged condition. We under¬
stand the Scam iner intimates in Ms letter that the claims
when thus amended will he allowed.
In reference) to the British patent to Ah el, JJo.1862
of 1887, which the Examiner cites, the Invention thereof is
a Lalande storage hattery using copper oxide as a dopolaris-
er. The invention of the patent, as we understand it, con¬
sists in mixing an oxide which has several degrees of oxi¬
dation with copper oxide, and whioh hy parting with some of
its Oxygen to the oopper, causes the latter to he raised tp
a higher stage of oxidation, presumably OuOs. The patent
recites a number of oxides whioh form lower and higher ox¬
ides and which may perform this aotion with oopper. The
entire patent is full of misstatements and appears to be
purely theoretical.. The patentee states that certain ox-
ide« are insoluble in alkaline solutions, and among them
mention is mode of oxide of bismuth (of whioh ijhera are five,
though no one is specifically identified) and oxide of sil¬
ver, presumably AsfcO. Both of these oxides of these
metals are so soluble in zinoate solutions of alkalies that
it is praotically impossible to plate zinc from the solution
in a coherent fora so as to be used in a storage battery. .
Bismuth oxides of various kinds could be made ohemioally and
used, but if made eleotrioally they reduce with suoh .dlf- .
ficulty that the voltage would be lower than the common oop-
per oxide of the lalande battery, and. their use therefore' ,
would be R positive detriment. Moreover, since bismuth'
I oxide la not raised to the higher stage by current when in
a solid state and in alkaline solutions, it could not possi¬
bly asa.lBt in giving off oxygen to the copper oxide to cause
it to be raised to a higher stage. Peroxide of manganese,
also referred to by the patentee, cannot be raised to a
higher stage of oxidation chemically or by the current. It
does not work at all in alkaline solutions. it is inert;
In many oheraioal reactions peroxide of manganese passes its
oxygen to assist in oxidations of other materials without
itself changing. In this reBpeot it 1b like peroxide of
oobalt, but in alkaline solutions under the conditions of a
storage battery it does not so act. If protoxide of nickel
is to be mixed with copper or teroxide of niokol is so used,
neither aots as a transferrer of oxygen as the patentee
states. The aame is true of protoxide of oobalt, although
the peroxide of oobalt aots as suoh an agent but not in al¬
kaline solution. Thera are three oxides of copper, Ot^O,
3u0, and CuOg. The latter oxide is unstable, and although
rery desirable as a depolarizer in an alkaline battery, it
>annot be made by the ourrent nor be produced when mixed
rith any of the above oxidizers. It is made chemically
>y the action of peroxide of hydrogen, but it is bo unsta-
ile that it decomposes at ordinary temperatures, and its
'Xis tenae is even denied by some chemists. Abel in his
.atent states that on discharging from the battery, the:
oxides revolt to a lower Btage of oxidation. This state¬
ment is entirely inoorreot, since silver, oopper and bis¬
muth, the oxides of whioh metals are all referred to;, re¬
vert to the metallic state. The. patentee also says that,
oxide of lead oan be used in . the alkaline solution, where-;
Upon lead will bo deposited in plaoe of zinc. Had the ex¬
periment boon tried, the patentee would have found that only
filaments of lead ore formed under suoh conditions and; that
I no coherent coating taken place, and that Instead of the
oxides which are referred to being raised to a higher state
Of oxidation, peroxide of lead would ho deposited on the
positive pole out of the solution simultaneously with the
deposition of lead on the negative pole and the various
mixtures he recites would not he acted on at all. Finally,
Abel in the patent wider consideration alleges that any oth¬
er metal than zino or lead can be used which will combine,,
with the alkaline solution. Tills statement is also incor¬
rect, since aluminum combines oven better than zinc but can¬
not be plated back, and there are other raetal3 of the same
character. It seems to us therefore that the Abel patent
is purely theoretical, that most of its statements are en¬
tirely unsupported in fact, and that it should not be relied
upon as a reference to a speoifio and valuable improvement,;
based on actual experiments, no the Examiner knows.
The Abel patent in question corresponds to German
patent No. 38,383 of January 18, 1887, to Alfred Dun of
Frankfort. This is tho patent that is specifically refer¬
red to by Mlohalowski in his German patent Ho. 118,351,
which corresponds to the English patent in the same name,
Ho. 15,370 of 1899. Tho German patent to Dun Is also re¬
ferred to by Mlohalowski in the latter's English patent¬
ee submit that if the Abel British patent or the correspond¬
ing Dun German patent offered any valuable suggestions for
the use of oxide of niokel as a depolarizer for use irre¬
versible galvanic batteries, Mlohalowski, who followed Dun,
would have availed himself of such suggestions. Yet the.
fact is that Mlohalowski aooompllehed no more than did his,
predecessor. All the statements made by Mlohalowski in
liis patont have been investigated experimentally at the Ed¬
ison laboratory. It has been found that soaroely ^ single
one has any foundation in fact, and the patent my be rt-
• -8-
gardod as entirely and hopelessly Inoperative. Mlohalowski
etates tJiat KigOg acts as a depolarizer, "but this statement
is untrue. ITigOj. when placed in contact with a conducting
electrode in a zinc alkaline battery In inert, and that ox¬
ide when made by any of the methods described in the patent
is inert. The oxide of nickel which acts as a depolarizer
cannot he made by any of the processes recited in the Mi-
ohalowski patent} neither can it be formed by taking the
Ki20s an produced by the procesne# described by the patents*,
even when subjected to electrolytic oxidation in an alka¬
line solution.
The real depolarizer which applicant has discovered
is a higher oxide than ITlgOg, made by electrolytic action
in alkaline solution on nickel hydroxide and not on nickel
oxide. It seetas to us that neither the bun patent ae de¬
scribed in the Ahel patent, nor the Kichalowski patent which
the Examiner also refers to, can bo considered as throwing
any light whatever on the particular work in which applicant
is engaged, and we submit that suoh patents therefore should
be withdrawn. In view of the manifest value of applicants
depolarizer, it seems hardly possible that the prior invent¬
ors could have produced the same without discovering it*
importance.
We note that the Examiner rejects the claims on the
electrolytioally active finely divided iron or electrolyti-
cally reducible oxide of iron on the United states patent to
Lalande. Although tho translation from the French of the
Lalando specification is not all that. could be desired, it
is clear that lalanda describes the employment of reduced :
iron, palladium, platinum, and spongy platinum solely for :
the purpose of absorbing hydrogen, which of itself acts as
the oxidlzable element. .The reduced metal is, however, ab-
-D- ' ' :
solutely insert and 1b therefore not eleatrolytioally ac¬
tive, nor waa it expeoted that it would he,
So far as the Hamilton patent is oonoerned, we fail
to perceive its pertinence. All that it appears to show
is a depolarising plate held in position hy a wire, whioh
oannot in any sense of the term he considered the equivalent
of a recap taole having elastic walls.
Applicant has made an effort to fully and completely
diBouBB all the references oitod hy the Examiner, and point
out why in his opinion the requirement for division oueht
not to he insisted upon.
We hope that as now presented the ease my he al¬
lowed.
Very respectfully,
THOMAS A. EDISON,
By _ _
Kis Attorneys .
New York, April 15, 1901.
-3©-:
VI!
s
!i
3— 210.
department of the interior. A.M.H.
United States Patent Office.
Thomas A. Edison,
Care Dyer, Edmonds & Dyer,
31 Hass an st . ,
Hew York, H. Y.
( m?j
Please find below a communication from the EXAMINER in charge of your application.
Ho. 49,453, filed Mar. 1, 1901, -"Reversible Galvanic Battery",
Commissioner of A
considSerenteent flle<1 Apr’ 18 * 1901’ has been entered aad
nr.o«=TJ!e+PvrAi0n‘? shovm ln solid black i" ?i e. 2, should be
tion! h tched’ since in this art solid black indicates insula-
disttno t ?^^lth?T?aSe “T sti11 considered to cover two
ot invent ioas. (l) an act ivejlerpgnt composed of an oxide
of a magnetic metal other than iron?/ covered by claims 1, 2,
’ fj . 5* 7> 8» 2®» 29 and 30; (2) an active material com¬
posed of finely divided iron or finely divided ferrous oxide
nnM«edfby olai“s 1°» 11 and 12. These active elements are ca-
S?bfh» L«»?4na!?endentiy of each other> see bottom of pace 2
°5w specification, and neither modifies the action of the
In advance of further action upon the merits the claims
Should be limited to one invention.
of it 7 and 8 are each rejected upon Abel,
^d cobalt which the Uf® °f hydrated oxides of nickel
^oxidath^hl 5 h t! o£ro?erty of Passlne to a hie her staCe
or oxidation. See lines 20-25, pace 1 of Abel.
record and ^ 10’ 11 12 &re each reJected upon Dalande, of
German 107 i 727, Hov. 29, 1899, Poliak, (Batt . , Sec. ) .
thaV applicant is mistaken in the statement that
in the Dalande patent the reduced iron is solelv for the pur¬
pose of abuorbine hydroeen, as it is believed this is true only
!
4
49,455 - 2.
of the palladium and platinum, the metals usually employed for
this purpose. As the reduced iron and precipitated copper are
readily oxidizable elements they would be alternately oxidized
and reduced during discharging and charting of the Lalande cell.
In the absence of evidence that the reduced iron merely acts
to absorb hydrogen, it must be assumed that it acts as above
stated Las' this appears to be the more probable explanation.
Claims 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 32 and 33 ar^e each rejected
upon lalande and Poliak taken in connection with Abel and
Hichalowski, of record. These claims do not cover such a com¬
bination as will mee.t the legal tests precluding the joinder
of references. Each tJf the active elements is capable of use
with various other active elements and neither one of them
modifies the action of the other. The Hichalowski patent is
retained as a reference as the data upon which the statements
are based that it is inoperative are not specified in this case.
If this data be furnished the Hichalowski patent will be with¬
drawn as a reference.
Claim 22 is rejected upon Lalande and Poliak taken in con¬
nection with Abel.
Claim 27 is rejected upon Hamilton and lalande of record.
In reply to the statement that all Hamilton appears to show is
a depolarizing plate held in position by a wire attention is
called to lines 48-52 and 60-63, page 2. In lines 52, 53, page
1 of Lalande it is stated that the oxide of copper may be held
by a bag of iron, copper or brass gauze.
Claims 28, 29 and 51 are each rejected upon Hamilton and
Lalande taken in connection with Abel and Hichalowski.
Claim 30 is rejected upon Hamilton and Lalande taken in
connection with Abel.
Ex'r'Div. 3,
c
THOMAS A. EDISON
REVERSIBLE GALVANIC BATTERY
SIZED MARCH 1, 1901
SERIAL NO. 49,453
A P PEAL .
HON. COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS,
SIR:
In the above-entitled application, we hereby
appeal to the Board of Exarainera-inrOhief from the decision
of the Pr.imary Examiner, who on May 7th, 1901, rejected for
a second time and f inally claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 52 and
33, and we assign the following reas ons of appeal :-
. 3- The Examiner erred in deciding that the patent
to Abel of record dieolosee the equivalent of applicant's to-
proved depolarizer..
The Examiner erred in deciding that the pat¬
ents to Lalande and to Poliak disclose the equivalent of.
applicant's improved oxidizable element.
3- The Examiner erred in deciding that the refer¬
ences of record anticipate the terms of the rejected claims.
-.V The Examiner erred in deciding that the refer¬
ences of reoord anticipate the substance of said claims.
Jk_ The Examiner erred in rejecting said claims,.
_ 6._ The Examiner erred in not allowing said claims.
An oral hearing is- raBpeotfully requested.
ROOM NO. 149.
Respectfully,
THOMAS A. EDISON,
pew York, Kay 8, 1901.
His Attorneys.
Messrs. Dyer, Edmonds & Dyer,
New York City.
Gentlemen: -
Your favor of the 8th instant, enclosing two
appeals in Edison Storage Battery cases, filed January
8, 1901, and March 1, 1901, No. 42,514 and No. 49,453,
respectively, is at hand and contents noted.
Mr. Byrnes refused to accept the appeal in the
March case, as certain of the claims had not heen twice
acted upon. He also was of the opinion that the case
should be divided before, appeal.
1 telegraphed the result of the interview to
you, and upon receiving your reply again saw Mr. Byrnes.
He agreed to withdraw hi3 requirement for division until
after the appeal is decided. At the same time, I have
filed a request, for reconsideration. Both cases are set
for Wednesday next, in the afternoon. The Examiner’s '
aireweiswill be ffirnished in time, .
YoUrs. truly,
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFJICE,
- 0O0 - -
Thomas A. Edison : <.
Reversible Galvanic Battery :
Room No. 149.
Piled March 1, 1901 :
Serial No. 49,453 !
- $Oo -
Honorable Commissioner of Patents,
Sir:-
In the above entitled application, it is re¬
quested that the requirement for division be waived un¬
til the appeal to be taken to the Board be disposed of.
It is understood that it is the usual praotide
to require that division be made prior to appeal, but in
view of the peculiar ciroumstances of the case and the
desire on the part of the applicant for immediate aotion,
, it is requested that this requirement be postponed.
Reconsideration of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8
is requested. It i-s thought that -the Abel patent does
not disclose the equivalent of applicant's improved de¬
polarizer. Reconsideration of daimB 10, 11 and 12 is
requested, as it is thought that the references Lalande
and Poliak do not disclose the equivalent of applicant's
improved oxidizable element.
Reconsideration of claims 13, 14, 16, 19, 2b,
21, 32 and 33, io requested, as it is thought that the
references Abel and Michaelowski do not meet the terms
of these claims.
Reconsideration of claim 22 is requested for
the reasons stated in connection with claims 10, 11 and
12.
Reconsideration of claim 27 is requested, as it is
thought that Hamilton and Lalande do not disclose the in¬
vention set forth in this claim. Reconsideration of
olaims 23, 29 and 31, is requested, for the reason that
the patents of Hamilton and Lalande taken in connection
with those of Abel and Michaelov/ski, do not disolose the
invention set forth in these claims.
Reconsideration of claim 30 i 3 requested for
the same reason.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas A. Edison,
by
Washington, I). C.,
May 9, 19ol. his Attorneys.
Waihlngton, D. C.» DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, N
d HuurtieSi States ^patent
| • , Washington, ffl. C., . iqo y/ \
1 SM: " / —
|
2 I have to acknowledge the receipt of the APPEAL in the ....
8 ■ ja. np *
3 the fee payable thereon.
jj Of the result due advice will be given.
. | • • Very respectfully,
\ M. '14* • .
fe - .
r /
tmissloner of Patents.
17924blm<-01
V
in the United states patent office.
THOMAS A. EDISON
REVERSIBLE GALVANIC BATTERIES
FILED MARCH 1, 1901
SERIAL NO. 49,453
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT.
The present invention relates to reversible galvanic
or so-called •'storage'' batteries. A light, permanent and
oheap storage battery iB a device for which many inventors
have sought unsuooessfully for years. The problem was ta¬
ken up by Mr. Edison some time ago, and after almost count¬
less experiments a number of new cells have been produced.
Of the several inventions which were made as a. result of
these exp eriments , the combination of the present oase iff
that whioh has been finally adopted as offering the most per¬
fect solution of all praotioal difficulties.
The common lead aooumulator originally suggested by
Plantd and improved by Faure, Brush and others, is at the
present time praotioally the only storage battery in use, bu\
it .14 objectionable, on aooount of its great weight and enor¬
mous deterioration. Batteries of the alkaline zinoate type
have also been suggested a,nd used,, and ; they ai’e of
less weight than lead batteries, they have a greater deter¬
ioration, principally on aooount of the failure of previous
experimenters to disoover a.raetal on which the aino oould
be plated out of the solution in a sufficiently ooherent
form as to -be practicable. In .applicant *& experiments , suol
a metal has been discovered and is embodied in another appli-
cation) but with, batteries of', the alkaline isinoate type the
Before the Examiners-in-chief/
On Appeal.
present oase hafl nothing to do. It my ho mentioned, how¬
ever, that alkaline zinoata batteries, although 'ii^tor than
lead oello , must always be necessarily bulky, sinoe enough
solution must he employed to take up the zino oxide on dis¬
charge.
What applioant sought to do, therefore, was to pro-
duoe a battery having ohemioal reactions whioh require noth¬
ing to he taken from or added to the solution in discharging
or charging and henoe overoome the necessity of using a largo
quantity of solution, as is necessary in the alkaline zino-
ate and load batteries, and at the same time to employ an
alkaline eleotrolyte and hence prevent the deterioration pro-
duoed by acids, overoome the necessity of employing a great
hulk of water in Whioh to carry the aoid, and also do !
away with the necessity of rapid absorption of some ingredi¬
ent from the liquid as to lead cells. Hence it was first
I necessary to find some metal which oan be oxidized and re¬
duced in alkaline solutions and whose oxide is insoluble
therein. In searching for suoh a metal, applicant's exper¬
iments carried him through the list of all the elements of
sufficient oheapnesfi arid quantity to make their use possible
in this aft. Metals whioh are prohibitively high in cost o •
the supply of whioh ;is very low were not, of course, as ex¬
haustively examined as others. Many interesting facts were
determined by 'these se^periments. It was fpund that magne¬
sium opuld not be. -used, , (although light, beoaupe its oxide is
not reducible, while , of bourse, its great eagpenee would be
further, obJeotionab^e. Aluminum* while cheap, and light,
oannot be employed,; sitjoe its , oxide is soluble irt - the ialka-
};ine solution, .and. furthermore ijroould not be plated back ai
in an Alkaline ^einoate battery,; -even if its. oxide did’not
ddssolwe. 'ManganeO!»;fiB/.also. edbnomidal • and‘ of light weight
V v ' ■ : . :;v ’ . -r'
■v
but it decomposes spontaneously in an alkaline solution, and
hence is usalesB. Cadmium can be used, as applicant de¬
scribes and claims in pending applications, but the supply
of this metal is quite restricted and its price is high.
Nickel oxide oould not be reduced to the metallic state, al¬
though cheap and light, and even if it oould be used its
voltage would be very low. The same is true of cobalt,
■which, however, is relatively expensive. Tin is out of the
question, as its oxide is soluble. The oxides of antimony
are also soluble, their atomic weight high, and even if such
oxides oould be used the voltage derived therefrom would be
prohibitively low. lead cannot be employed, since its ox¬
ide is soluble. Copper oan be used, but its voltage is very
low. The only possible metals, therefore, whioh can be.
used for the purpose are cadmium, iron and copper. The
voltage derived from cadmium and iron is about the same,
while that from oopper is very muoh lower.
Having, therefore, by a process of exclusion, deter¬
mined upon these possible useful metals, applicant construct¬
ed oells employing cadmium as the active metal and using as
a depolarizer oxide of oopper prepared in a special way so
as to be entirely insoluble. That combination, as stated,
is made the subject of other applications, and through the
issue of foreign patents and publication in technical Jour¬
nals haB been made known to t be world.
The utilisation of cadmium as the aotive element was
very simple, since that metal is readily reduoed by the
charging current and oxidised on discharge. With iron, how¬
ever, the problem presented great difficulty. Since none
of the ohendoal books to which applicant had aooess referred
tp. any iron pburpound whioh could be eleotrolytioally oxidise!
arid reduced and whose oxide is insoluble in an aUdllin* so¬
lution, imoh a compound had to be discovered by independent
-s-
(experiment. The more prominent of the diffioulties which
applicant met in hie eearoh for the right material are state 1
in the specification. Applicant says:-
I "My attempts to utilize iron aB the oxidizable
element in an alkaline reversible battery were for a
lone time frustrated by the facts, determined only
after exhaustive experiments, that dried oxides of
iron were not reduo ible to any extent by the our-
rent; that spongy iron reduced by hydrogen from
different iron salts was not oxidizable to any con¬
siderable extent by the ourrantj that the hydrates
of iron were very bulky and difficult of use without
[drying, which operation effected some obBoure oharige
therein to render them nearly inert in the presence
of the reducing current; that bulky ferrio oxide
was not capable of any considerable reduction by the
current; and finally, that ferrous oxide, though
easily reducible, was very difficult to prepare on
acoount of atmospheric oxidation."
All of these facts, as stated, are based on aotual
experimental work, and the statements have been made only
after their truth has been completely verified. The Exam-
|.ner does not, nor will he, dispute the oorreotness of any
ine of these allegations of fact, for the reason that in ap-
'lioant's prior case filed December 88, 1900 (sinoe aban-
.oned and of which this is a continuation), the Examiner re¬
vested applicant to furnish evidence to substantiate these
tatements, whereupon the Examiner was- invited to the Edison
aboratory and the truth of each was demonstrated by aotual
Having decided to use iron as the active element,
having found that reduced spongy iron is not oxidizable,
and that bulky ferrio oxide, dried ferrio oxides and dried
ferrio hydrates are not reducible to any considerable extent,
those materials had to be excluded, leaving ferrous oxide as
the only material capable of use. As already stated, how-
Eer, ferrous oxide la extremely difficult to prepare,., on
count of atmospheric oxidation. At the time of the fil-
g of the present application, the preferable process of
I preparing ferrous oxide suitable for use none is tad in finely
crushing iron monosulphide, mixing it with powdered flake
graphite or other inert conducting material, paoking the
mass in perforated pockets or receptacles made of nickel or
nickel-plated steel so as not to ho affeoted by the elec¬
trolyte, and subjeotine the mass to alternate electrioal
oxidation and reduction so as to eliminate the sulphur.
This resulted in the production of what is supposed to be
ferrous oxide, which was capable of being reduoed to the met¬
allic fora when subjected to the charging current and of be¬
ing oxidized to the ferrous condition during the discharging
operation. More recent developments have produced improved
processes for obtaining the right kind of oxide, which has
the property of being acted on by the current.
The oxide of iron employed by applicant, and which
'• is eleotrolytioally reducible, has been generally referred t>
as “ferrous oxide8, but later experiments have led applicant
to suppose that possibly the oxide may be in a lower condi¬
tion of oxidation than the ferrous state and may have the
formula IFegO. It is sufficient to say that it is of a low¬
er condition of oxidation than ferrio oxide, and if it is
not ferrous oxide it very olpseiy approximates the chemical
formula of the latter. Applioont describes the way by whidi
the oxide is produced, so that it is, of course, unimportant
to positively identify it by itB chemical formula. The
production of ferrous oxide, or a new oxide if it be such,
capable of electrolytic oxidation, was the result of pure
discovery on applicant's parti In making the testB for.an
operative iron compound, electrodes were made utilizing all
known iron combinations, and these electrodes were opposed by
an ordinary copper oxide depolarizer. It was found that :
none of, them worked. When, however, the current was revem, id
— - - - ■ — ■ ' - ■ . ft Set _ : _ - ■ ■
through the oells, It was discovered, upon again attempting
to discharge, that the cell using the monosulphide combina¬
tion gave slight results. Applicant then found that hy. ox¬
idising and reducing the monosulphide in the alkaline elec¬
trolyte to eliminate the sulphur, a condition of oxidation
was produoed whioh was operative for the purpose.
Thus the Examiners-in-rChief will see the process by
which the new active material was reached. In the first,
place, objectionable types of batteries had to be exoluded,
and a new and theoretically perfect typo devised. In the
sepond plaoe, those metals which could not be used, for one
reason or another, had to b8 eliminated, narrowing the
field of utility to oadaium, iron and copper. Hext, of
these three metals cadmium and oopper were exoluded, the
first beoause of its expense and the seoond because of its
low voltage; so that at last iron was settled upon. And
finally, of the many iron compounds, the lower oxide alone
was found to he suitable for the purpose, and that only by
experimental discovery, as stated. Even with this discov¬
ery made, further experiments were necessary in order to ;
get it in the proper form for use and prevent atmospheric
oxidation, and also to obtain the maximum effect per unit of
weight.
Having settled upon iron as the oxidlssabla or active
element of the cell, the next difficulty met in the devel¬
opment of the battery was the production of a depolarizer
suitable for use therewith in an alkaline solution. Prior
to applicant’s invention, oxide of copper and oxide of mer¬
cury were practically the only available depolarizers for
the purpose. Copper oxide used as a depolarizer with iron
develops only about .45 of .a volt, and although that oxide,
is cheap and light, the low voltage necessitates a large ir-
oreaB* of weight. furthermore it was impossible, prior to
applicant fs experiments in the art, to prepare copper oxide
in suoh a way as to be completely insoluble in the alkaline
solution when subjected to electrolytic action. Merourio
oxide employed as a depolarizer with iron develops from .85
to .90 of a volt, but its weight and expense are also high,
neither of these available depolarizers when used with iron
appeared to offer a complete solution of the storage battery
problem, although applicant has filed applications describ¬
ing the employment of oxide of copper as a depolarizer, pre¬
pared in a new way so as to be entirely insoluble.
In searching for a new depolarizer the heat of forma¬
tion of whose oxide should be as low or lower than that of
meroury, applicant found after a large number of experi¬
ments that a certain oxide of nickel was the desirable ele¬
ment, on account of its cheapness and entire insolubility in
an alkaline electrolyte; but the preparation of a nickel com¬
pound capable of operating successfully presented as great
difficulties as were met with in the work on the iron ele¬
ment. It was found, in the first place, that the metal :
itself, when finely divided (as obtained by reduoing a nick¬
el compound by hydrogen or electrolysis), is not oxldizablc
to any considerable extent when subjected to eleotrolytio
oxidation in an alkaline solution, whioh faot is stated in
the specification (page 8). It was clear, therefore, that
applicant could get no Information by analogy from the de-
?olari*ere previously used in alkaline solutions, beoause
both merotiry and' copper in metallic form, when finely di-
rided, are readily oxidizable elect w>lytioally and with equal
facility revert to the metallic condition upon discharge.
pinoe finely divided nickel oannot be oxidized aa‘ stated,
the use of nickel in ways analogous to the employment of the
1
previous depolarizer* was a hopeless and, in fact, impossi¬
ble problem. In many forma of aoid batteries, as, for ex¬
ample, in the ordinary lead accumulator, the depolarizing
oxides, instead of passing to the metallic state and vice
versa. P&ss from a low condition of oxidation to a high or
peroxide condition. Applicant was able to get no help even
from this analogy, because it, was found that peroxide of
niofeel (Nigtyj ) wan absolutely inert for depolarizing pur¬
pose*5 • After making a great many experiments in this line,
during which the attempted use of nickel was given trp as
hopeless and again referred to, it was found, purely as a
result of discovery, that the hydrated lower oxide of nickel
or the hydrated peroxide thereof, when subjected to electro¬
lytic oxidation in an alkaline solution, was either rais.ed to
a higher state of oxidation than the peroxide condition or
else acted as a meohanioal absorber of oxygen in some unknown
manner, and that upon discharge it, , reverted to a lower s tate
of oxidation. In other words, it was rt 1b covered that if
nickel is to be used as a depolarizer in batteries of this
type, it passes from a low to a super-peroxide state of oxi¬
dation, and not, like oopper and meroury, from the metallic
state to an oxide and vioa versa, or, like the depolarizer*
of lead batteries, from a lower oxide to the peroxide state.
The discovery which applicant made and by which the new dcr
polarizer was produced was brought to light only after prac¬
tically all the available nickel compounds were fully exper-
riented with. It was found, as stated in the specification,
that nickel sulphide is not decomposed by. eleotrclysi*. under
the conditions of. battery work, as- the analogous iron sul*r;
IphidCj. and further that even when the black nickel peroxide
) is produced by. he at re^otiotm, so aa to be anhydrous,
f* 48 Poetically inert and does not absorb oxygen to any rrt
practical extent, like the hydrated oxides, whert subjected tc
eleotrolytid action. It may be stated that bo far as ap¬
plicant known, he is the first to suggest the possibility of
using oxide of nickel as a depolarizer in a storage battery
employing an alkaline solution and wherein during the charg¬
ing operation the oxide is raised to a condition of oxidation
beyond the peroxide state ofc else acts as a raeohanioal absorb¬
er of oxygen.
Having made the discovery in oonneotion with oxide
of niokel, the close analogy to that element of cobalt led
applioant to assume that oxides of oobalt would act in the
same way, which surmise was verified by experiment.
In his application, applioant describes a common way
of producing the hydrated oxide, consisting, generally, in
preoipitating either the monoxide or the black hydrated dir
oxide of either niekel or oobalt, washing the precipitate
free from the produo ts of the reaction, filtering off the
liquid, and drying the precipitate, the resulting dried hy¬
drated oxide being then finely powdered.
Briefly stated, then, applicant's improved storage
battery is of the alkaline type, employing the liquid only
as a conductor, its active or oxidizable element being fine¬
ly divided ferrous oxide, or else some unknown oxide lower
in oxygen than the ferrous condition, and (employing as the;
depolarizer or oxygen-furnishing element a hydrated oxide of
niokel or cobalt capable of being raised to a higher or sup¬
er-peroxide state of oxidation on oharging. When in a dis¬
charged oondltioii, ' the negative eleotrode is in a condition
of ferrous oxide and the positive eleotrode is in a condition
of ordinary blabk hydrated oxide of nickel or oobalt. Ber¬
ing charging, tbie. ferrous oxide is reduoed to the metallio
state and the . oxi^of : nickel or cobalt raised to a higher
state of oxidation than the sesquioxids or, as it in some¬
times oalled, the peroxide state.
In order that the current-conductive capacity of the
active materials may ho sufficiently high, applicant mixes
thorn with rooited proportionn of flake graphite or other
inert conducting material. In practice, the finely divided
particles of the active materials fora a thin coating or ; ,
layer upon the graphite scales. Tho blocks or compressed
masses of the active materials are then received in perfor¬
ated pockets or receptaoles made of nickel or of iron or .;
■steel nickel-plated so as to he insoluble in the electro¬
lyte, thus completing the cells. It was found, with the
nickel oxide particularly, that whan subjected to a charging
current so as to be further oxidized, a considerable expan¬
sion in bulk took place, with a<: consequent contraction on
discharge. It was, therefore, necessary to siipport the ac¬
tive materials in pockets or receptacles having elastic pallj,
which maintained good electrical contact with «ie aotive ma¬
terials at all times, irrespective of bulk thereof.
In order that generic claims might be made to the
new depolarizer, the broad expression "a hydrated oxide of
a specific magnetic metal other than iron* is employed, the
specification stating that by this expression is meant eith¬
er a hydrated oxide of nickel or of cobalt., or both. It, ip
unnecessary for us to consider, tho claims in detail. Olaiw
1 and 2 cover broadly the new depolarizer, consisting of
"a hydrated oxide of a specific magnetio metal other than
iron*. Claim* 13, 14, 15, 28, 32 and 83 cover the depolar¬
izer,. defined as "an oxide of a specific magnetio metal oth-
er than iron and capable of. furnishing oxygen for the oxida¬
tion of the iron on discharge'', however that limitation may
be expressed. Claims 4, 5, 21 and 29 cover as the depolar-
-10-
lzer "an oxide of niokel * • * having when charged elac-
trolytloally more oxygen than Ni^Og" (niakcl peroxide), how¬
ever that limitation my he expressed. Claims 7, 8, 28 and
30 are limited to "a hydrated oxide of nickel". Glaim 19
covers somewhat more broadly "oxide of niokel capable of .
furnishing oxygen for the oxidation of the iron on dis¬
charge". Claim 10 covers broadly the new oxidizable ele¬
ment consisting of “electrolytloally active, finely divided
iron * * * oapable of being oxidized on discharging",,
i. e. , metallic iron eleotrolytioally reduced from the fer¬
rous oxide. Claim 11 oovers broadly "finely divided forrous
oxide * * * capable of being’ deoxidized on charging"..
Claim 12 covers broadly "an oxide of iron * * * electro-
lytlcally reducible to the metallic state upon charging*.
Claim 20 oovers broadly the combination, in an alkaline so¬
lution, of '"finely divided oxide of iron whan discharged"
on one electrode, and "an Sxide of nickel" on another elec¬
trode. Claims 27 and 31 are not limited to the partloular
active materials and are as followB:-
"27. An active element for an alkaline rever¬
sible galvanic battery, comprising a perforated con¬
ducting receptacle having elastic walls and an active
material therein engaged by said walls with an clas¬
tic pressure, substantially as set forth."
“51. In a reversible galvanic battery, a suit-,
able electrolyte, an active material therein which in
charging or discharging is alternately increased dr
decreased in bulk, a perforated oondueting receptacle
holding the material and having elastic walls which
at all times engage the material with an elastic
pressure, and another conducting support carrying a
different actiya material, substantially as set
forth."
These oomprise all the claims whioh have been re-.;
jeoted. Of these claims, the first, second, fourth, fifth,
seventh, and eighth cover individually the depolarizer ex-,
pressed gonerioally and specifically; the tenth, eleventh
and twelfth cover the oxidizable element generioally aiid.jsped-
■ ' -ilr. ' . , jfcj-
ifically; and all the other claims exoept the twenty-
seventh and thirty-first (which are quoted above) cover the
combination of the n.lokel and iron.
iPor the sake of convenience:, it is only necessary to
determine, first, whether or not the prior art describes,
with sufficient fullness to enable a skilled person without
experiment to carry it into effect, the employment on the neg¬
ative side of ferrous oxide or other Iron oxide capable of
being electrolytioally reduced to the metallic Btate, or,
finely divided iron capable of being elootrolytioally oxi¬
dised upon discharge; second, whether the references of •
record disclose with the same requisite fullness the employ¬
ment, aa a depolarizer, of a hydrated oxide of nickel or
cobalt capable of being raised to a higher or super-peroxide
state of oxidation, and that, such oxide was intended to be
actually bo used; and third, whether the references of rec¬
ord diaolose with the same requisite fullness the employ-: :
went in a storage cell of perforated conducting receptacles
or pockets having elaBtio waIIb which at all times engage '
the active material with an elastic pressure.
The Examiner rejeots the claims on the iron compound
upon U. S. patent to Lalande, No. 274,110, and on German
patent to Poliak, Bo. 107; 727; • he rejects the claims on the
depolarizer on British patents to Abel, No. 1862 of 1887,
and to Kiohalowski, No. 15,370- of- 1899;- and he rejeots the
claims on the- alas tic pooket feature on the ha land e patent;
U. 8. patent to Hamilton No. 619,885, and British patent to
Jungnor No. 7892 of 1099. Those patents will be considered
In thin order.
IAT.ANDB. PATENT. '
The Lalands primary battery is of a wall-known type,
and; in faot, for a number of year* Hr. Edison has been the
_ _ -la- _
only manufacturer In this country of the "Ialande" or "Edi-
eon-Ialande" battery, under a license from the patentees.
If anyone in this country, therefore, understands the oper¬
ation of the Ialande oell, wa submit that the applicant is
that person.
The Ialande battery made use of oxide of copper as
the depolarizer and a zino plate ap the oxidiaable element.
On discharge, the copper oxide is reduced to the metallic
state and the zino is oxidized, the oxide being dissolved in
the electrolyte. The Ialande patent states that the piles
in question
"are reversible — that is to pay, oapable of being
recharged by an eleotrio current of sufficient elec¬
tromotive force”.
TOien subjected to a charging current, zino will be plated oui
of the solution, as in the alkaline sinoate batteries, and
the metallic copper again oxidized, but the sine plating wli: .
be poor and non-coherent, so that as a. storage battery 1*e
Islands cell has never been a commercial artiole. Ialande' s
statement of the reversibility of his battery wob a reference
only to a theoretical scientific fact, and, not to a com¬
mercial possibility.
Although the Ialande battery is , and always has been
a oopper-xino oell and the patent states that "we prefer
generally zino, which give* the greater eleotromotive fo,rce"
the patentee, as is usually the case, described other oxldl-
zable elements. These substitute oxldizable elements are
of two olasse*:- Eirst, active metals, such as tin and
lead, and .second, hydrogen mechanically oarried by "palla¬
dium, platinum, spongy platinum, iron reduced, or, as well,
copper obtained by precipitation or Sleotrochemioal reduc¬
tion".
As we read the Ialande patent, the statement that
' -w-
| "the active electrode of tho pile la constituted by
a metal oapable of being attacked by the exciting
liquid of the pile when the oirouit is cloned — .for
example * • • a metal capable of fixing the hy¬
drogen ao • * » iron reduced",
the olear meaning ie that reduced iron is employed solely
for the purpose of mechanically absorbing or fixing the hy¬
drogen, which latter ie the element to be oxidised on dis¬
charge. The Examiner, however, argues that the olear. and
undisputed meaning of the La lands patent is that reduced
iron alone is described as a suitable oxldiaable element.
We Bubmit that the Examiner's construction of the patent is
not that which would be reached by a reading of the speci¬
fication, and that at best the specification is too obscure
and doubtful on the point to constitute a reference. Furth¬
ermore, we call attention to the fact that applicant states
in his specification
"that spongy iron reduced by hydrogen from different
iron salts was not oxidlsable to any considerable
extent by the current",
so that even if the Examiner's interpretation of the Lalande
patent is correct, merely an inoperative and ineffective
suggestion is made, and this has bean shown by experiment to
the Examiner. It seems to us that it would be going too fax
to say that the Lalande patent desoribee the specific iron
compound which applicant has found is alone operative for
the purpose, namely, farrouB oxide or iron reduced from SuOl
an oxide eleotrolytioally.
POLIAK PATENT.
The Poliak patent ie one with which we were entirely
familiar at the time it was cited by the Examiner, as it had
previously been referred to by the German Patent Off loe in
connection with applications pending before that bureau.
The Poliak patent ie a remarkable instance of a theory which
has absolutely no foundation in foot. The invention it.
hopelessly inoperative in every direction.
TWint Poliak sought to do was to oonstruot a storage
battery using porous iron for both eleotrodes, one being
oxidized and the other reduoed by the charging current, the
reverse operations talcing place on discharge. If two plates
of oonpresBed iron oxide, having been brought to a glow heal ,
as described by Poliak, are put in a solution of an alkali,
one the positive and the other th® negative, and subjected 10
the current, absolutely ho effect takes plaoe, except that
oxygen and hydrogen gas are given off from the eleotrodes
supporting the plates. She current does not raise the oxi¬
dation of the iron oxide on one pole, and the oxide of iron
used by the patentee is not reducible to metallic iron at
the other pole. The plates when prepared by the process oJ
heating suggested by Poliak will be formed of ferric oxide.
and this when heated and subjected to the eleotrib current
in alkaline solutions is, for either pole, as absolutely in-'
ert as so much sand. Manifestly, if it would be possible
to use ordinary ferric oxide as Poliak describes, Edison
would not employ the roundabout prooeas of making ferrous
oxide as he describes. So far as we know, it was absolutely
new with Ed 1b on to employ finely divided iron in condition
for use in a storage battery. 8uoh an iron oompound is
certainly not suggested by Poliak, who describes ordinary
anhydrous ferric oxide, which, ae stated in the specification
and as has been demonstrated by the Examiner by aotual ex¬
periment, is utterly and hopelessly inert.
So far, therefore, as the patents to La land* and
Poliak are concerned, we submit that they do . not' show either
■eleotrolytioally active, finely divided iron * • » .,*a-
pahl# of being oxidized on discharging", or “finely divided
ferrous oxide -• • * capable of being deoxidised on chan;-
ins" » or "an oJtt&w of iron * * ® eleotrolytlaally reduc¬
ible to the metallic state upon charging®, as is reoited in
dlaimB 10, 11 and 12, and we think, therefore, that such
olaima are clearly patentable. If these broad claims are
allowed, the other olaias covering the iron compound are, we
submit, alBO allowable.
The Abel patent relates primarily to an alkaline
z inoat e battery wherein aino from the solution is plated on¬
to a suitable electrode upon charging, and by means of a BUit
able depolarizer is dissolved upon dieoharging. As before
stated, the common depolarizers in use with alkaline solu¬
tions prior to applicant's invention were oxide of oopper
and oxide of mercury, both of whioh revert to the metallic
state ifloon discharge. Instead of referring particularly to
those well-known depolarizers, the patentee states that he
"a metallio oxide or peroxide insoluble in oaustio
alkali solution, or hydrates of suoh oxides, which
have the property of passing to a higher stage of
oxidation by combining with oxygen" ,
and as suitable materials for the purpose he refers to oxides
of silver, oxides of oopper, peroxide of manganese, protox¬
ide of niokel, teroxlde of nlokel, protoxide of oobalt, and
oxide of bismuth. Of all the compounds referred to by the
patentee, the only ones whioh oan be used as a depolarizer
in the way applicant describes are the hydrated oxide of
niokel and the hydrated oxide of cobalt.
It seems dear, however, that Abel did not Intend or
expeot .to employ a depolarizer as applioant does, and to
raise, the niokel oxide to. a super-peroxide condition. .It
is incredible that if suoh was hi» intention he should have
failed to mention the very remarkable fact that nickel or
Cobalt could 'be rained beyond the peroxide state. As we
read the Abel patent, it describes nothing new. He says
that he may use as a depolarizer either an insoluble metallic
oxide, or an insoluble metallio peroxide, or the "hydrates
I of euoh oxides, whioh have the property of passing to a high¬
er stage of oxidation by combining with oxygen". That many
oxideB and their hydrates can pasB to higher Btages of oxi¬
dation was well known long before Abel, and, in faot, such a
reaction takes place in the ordinary lead accumulator, whore- •
in lead peroxide is fomed upon charging. In the next par¬
agraph of his patent, Abel refers to the employment of oxide
of copper as an addition to niokel protoxids (HJfiO), be¬
cause lie says the oopper "as peroxide or acid * • • ae-
slats and accelerates the higher oxidation of the other bod¬
ies by its readineflB to part with oxygon". Here Abel re¬
fers specifically to the lower oxide of niokel, and not to
the peroxide. He does, not make it Clear that the raising
of the lower oxide to a higher or peroxide state wae ex¬
pected to be performed by the current, but he apparently us¬
es oxide of oopper to effeot that result. The raising of
a hydrated oxide of niokel beyond the peroxide condition can¬
not be effected by the employment of any oxidising means
other than an eleotrie current, so that we have a further
reason for the statement that Abel did not expeot to raise
the oxide of niokel to d super-peroxide state. In describ¬
ing the operation of his cell, Abel states that —
. , ar* in consequence hereof converted
into the higher combinations with oxygen * • • .
*n die charging. the operation is reversedi ■gfitt* high-
®r “^SCn «ombinatlons previously formod beoomlhg
I It seems to us that if Abel had. made the disoovery that ox-
ddd of niokel could be raised to a higher state of oxidation
than the peroxide form, he would have so stated in his pat-
ent, and would not have made a statement which applies di~
redtly to analogous operations occurring in ordinary lead
aooumulatora . Unices the oxide of niokel is raised to a
higher state of oxidation than the peroxide form, it is.sn-
Itirely inort as a depolarizer and cannot he used as such.
Applicant so states in hie application (page 9}:-
1 "®he black oxide of nickel (Ni203) obtained in'
any manner known to me does not of itself aot as *
depolarizer to any extent with zinc in a reversible
galvanic battery using an alkaline solution*.
This f aot has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Examiner.
In Watts* Dictionary, three forms of oxide of silver
are referred tp. Eour oxides of copper and five oxides of
bismuth are known. Erom this It will be seen that Abel
refers to at least fifteen different oxides, whioh number .
will be doubled when the question of hydrates is considered.
Viewing the Abel reference in the aspect most unfa¬
vorable to applicant, it can only be said to refer to the
two compounds employed by applicant in a category including
at least twenty-eight others, all of which are entirely un¬
suitable for the purpose. Oxides of biBmuth and of silver
are so soluble in ainoa^e solutions of alkalies that it, is
practically impossible to plate zinc from the solution in a
coherent form so as to be used in a storage battery. Bi«r
muth oxides of various kinds can be made ohemioally and
uaed, but- if made eleotrioally they roduoe with auoh diffi¬
culty that the voltage would be lower than when the common
copper oxide depolarizer of the Lalande battalia used, and
their employment, therefore, would be a positive' detriments
Moreover, neither bismuth oxides nor silver oxides can .baS,
raised to a higher state of oxidation by the - current when. .in
a solid state and in alkaline solutions. ,, ?ero?cide of manga¬
nese cannot be raised to' a higher state of oxidation ohemi-
daily or by the current. It Is, In fact, absolutely Inert
In an alkaline solution. In many chemical reactions perox¬
ide of manganese parts with its oxygen to assist in oxidation
of other materials, without Itself changing, in which re¬
spect it is like peroxide of oobalt, but in alkaline solu¬
tions wider the conditions of a storage battery it does not
BO aot. If protoxide of niokel is to be mixed with oopper
or teroxide of nickel is to be so used, neither aote as a
transferrer of oxygen, as the patentee states. She same is
true of protoxide of oobalt, although peroxide of oobalt acts
as such an aeent, but not in alkaline solutions. The ox¬
ides of copper are reduced to the metallio state by the cur¬
rent, and not from lower to: higher forma of oxidation.
So far a* we have considered the Abol patent, it ap¬
pears that of the thirty combinations referred to only two
are oapable of use, viewing the patent in the aspoot most
unfavorable to applicant; but the true interpretation of the
Abel specification, as we view it, is still less favorable
to, the Examiner's contention, because it seams to have been
the aim of the patentee to raise the depolarizing: oxide only
to a peroxide state, not by electrolytic oxidation, but by
the employment of an additional oxidizing moauB, suOh as ox¬
ide of copper, which oould not be done in alkaline solution.
In many other respects the Abel patent is ambiguous,
misleading and mistaken. Eor instance, thi patentee states
that on discharging from the battery the oxides revert to •
lower stage of oxidation. This statement is entirely in¬
correct, sinoe silver, copper and bismuth, the oxides of
which metals are all referred to, revert to the metallio
(State- The patent also says that instead of using zinc in
the. .electrolyte oxide of lead oan be es^loyed, whldhwill .
plate out on the eleotrode. Rad the e^erimient been tried,
-19c ' ' •
the patentee would have found that only filaments of lea*
are formed under such. conditions, that no coherent coating
takes place, and that instead of tho oxides which are re¬
ferred to being raised to a higher state of oxidation, per¬
oxide of lead would be deposited ort the positive pole out of,
the solution simultaneously with the deposition of lead on
the negative pole, while tho various so-called depolarizers
referred to would not be acted on at all. Abel also says
. In hia patent that—
“instead of using asino or lead, any other metal may¬
be used Which will combine with the alkaline solution
on closing the circuit, such as tin in the form of
stannate of potash or soda.*
This statement is also inoorreot, since aluminum, for exam¬
ple, combines even better than sine, hut it cannot bo plated
back, and there are many other metals of the same character.
In order that the Abel patent can be regarded as a
reference to the claims, it will be necessary, first, to
discard from consideration all but two of the thirty depolar¬
ising materials referred to, and to regard the patent as es¬
pecially calling attention to hydrated oxides of niokel arid
cobalt; second, it must be definitely determined that the
depolarizers so used are eleotrolytically oxidized, although
the more probable explanation seems to be that the intention
was to use oxide of copper to effect this result; third,
it must be f ound that Abel describes the raising of oxide of
nickel or cobalt to a super-peroxide state, and Intended to
accomplish that result; aril finally, the many errors, in¬
sufficiencies and ambiguities of the patent must be passed
over as of no importance. Vo submit that under all the au¬
thorities a patent of this vague and indefinite character
, ought not to be successfully relied upon in anticipation of
a specific definite and important invention.
-SO-
AUTHORITIES ON BUCTIOIENCY OJ DESCRIPTION OF PRIOR
PATENTS OR PUBLICATIONS.
In the leading authority, Seymour v, Osborne. (11
Wall. 316), the Supreme Court atated the rule of law In the
following language (p. 355):
"Patented Inventions oannot he superseded by the
mere introduction of a foreign publication of the kind,
though of prior date, unless the description and draw-
00n^?in exhibit a substantial representation
of the patentodimprovement, in suoh full, clear, and
exact terms eb to enable any porson skilled in the art
or^soienoe to which it appertains, to make, construct, i
and practice the invention to the same praotioal extent
as they would be enabled to do if .the information was '
derived from a prior patent. Mere vague and general
representations will not support such a defence, as the!
knowledge supposed to be derived from the publication ™
must be suffioient to enable those skilled in the art
or science to understand the nature and operation of
tee invention, and to oarry it into praotioal use.
Whatever may be the particular .circumstances under
which the publication takes plaoe, the account pub¬
lished, to be of any effect to support suoh a defence,
must be an aooount of a complete and operative inven¬
tion capable of being put into praotioal operation."
The rule thus established by the Supreme Court has been tee
standard by whioh the Courts have universally measured the
sufficiency of prior patents and publications as anticipa¬
tions. The reports are full of opinions applying this
rule, and it is therefore lmpraotioablo to refer to more
I than a few oases. The rule has been explained and ampli¬
fied in various ways; as for instanoe, in some oases the
Courts have said that the prior description must be suffi¬
cient to enable the result to be reached "without experiment''}
in other oases, and referring particularly to a foreign pat¬
ent or foreign publication, the Courts have said that the
description oannot be supplemented by local knowledge or the
looal art as it existed in the foreign country} in other
oases tee Courts have said teat the prior description must
be suffioient to enable the result to be reached "without
-31-
I aid from the patent in auitnj in other oases the Courts
have called attention to the faot that if any uncertainty
exists as to what the prior description means, the doubt
must be solved in favor of the patent in suit; and as an¬
other way of stating the same proposition, the Courts in
other oases have said that the prior description must be
such that the deBired result "can be oertalnly arrived at“
by following that description. These liberal rules, or
liberal statements of the oommon rule, have usually been
applied in oases of patents which have really created some¬
thing which the art as practiced did not before possess.
The Courts reoognize the faot that after a practical result
has once been attained and prior descriptions are read with
that result in mind, the most striking resemblances are dis¬
covered, although the art never saw the desired thing in
those descriptions prior to the date of the patent which is
sought to be defeated. Hence they have refused to give
such prior descriptions the effect of anticipations unless
they are entirely definite and certain and show that the
prior experimenter had beyond doubt reaohed the goal.
As Judge Putnam said in Chase v. Pillebrown (88 P.R.
374, 378) :
„ one wh° has worthily revived something
useful by his own original genius merely beoause it has
beoome practically lost in some foreign and forgotten
publication, is sufficiently hard without extending the
i®* «?fli4as th® I!!111® S®?011*1 ita Proper construction.
Rev. St. 8eos. 4886, 4920, excluding inventions and
discoveries whioh have appeared in foreign and other
publications or patents, relate only to improvements
patented or desorlbed' . ThiB phraseology ifc not
ordinarily met by showing that the subjeot-matter of
the new patent was merely embraced or hidden away in
what is claimed to have anticipated it."
?he description is not sufficient if the result under oon-
ilderation is merely "ambraoed or hidden away" in the prior
leBoriptlon, or if it is simply inoluded by general language
-22-
In a eohedule made up largely of things which are valueless,
heoause a prior experiment er may have an absolutely worth¬
less idea and may follow the description of that worthless
idea by a schedule of numerous other things which he has
never tried and which may be found, when the successful re¬
sult is aooomplished, to inolude that suooessful result by
general statement. The art is not furnished by such a de¬
scription with the successful thing, but must oontinue itB
investigations and experiments until the goal is reached.
In Amerloan Oraphophone Co. v, Leeds <87 E.R. 873)
the Bell & Tainter patent was in suit, oovering the wax
phonograph record and the loosely mounted or gravity repro¬
ducer. An English patent granted to Edison was set up
among other defences, and this deSoribed, with reference to
the wax record, the employment of "paraffine or other hydro¬
carbons, waxes, gums, or. lacs" for the reoording surfaoe,
and also suoh material covered with thin metal foil. The
patent also referred to various metals and metallic composi¬
tions for the Bame purpose, but .it was not regarded as a
good anticipation for the definite invention of sound record
formed in wax or waxlike material. On the point of the
loosely-mounted or gravity reproducer, the Edison English
patent contained numerous illustrations of reproducers, some
of which, although not so specifically desorlbed, might bo
regarded as operating on the same principle as the Bell $
Tainter device. The Court (Shipman, C.J. ) said:
"This patent contained some of the suggestions and
sketohes of various sorts and kinds which Mr. Edison
had thought of or had made during his experiments upon
a subject novel, intricate and scientific, which re-
<p ired manifold and delicate experiments, and in which
he took a great interest. ; Some of his surmises and
beliefs in regard to what oould be or might be done
were thrown into this patent. » • * • * •
These descriptions are confessedly vague, and it is
| confessedly difficult to know the interpretation which
-23-
Co. (88 E.R. 268), the Cirouit Court of Appeals for the
Second Cirouit had under consideration a patent of Westing-
house on a freight train air brake system, whioh. was distin¬
guished from an earlier patent to Westinghouse by a some¬
what simple, but very important, difference. In the EngliSi
patent on the earlier device, Westinghouse had added by a
single sentence a statement of a modification not illustrat¬
ed in the drawings, whioh was oapable of being interpreted
as referring to the later improvement; but the Court, in
view of the importance and suoeess of the later invention
and the failure of the brake mechanism of the prior patent,
refused to find, in thiB brief unillUBtrated statement, the
substance of the later invention. Upon thiB situation, the
Court made the following observations:
"The successful character of the invention described
in the later patent has been universally recognized in
the litigations upon it * • * } and its im¬
portance at the date of the invention, in view of *the
practical failure of the brake meohanism of the pre¬
vious patent in the teats upon long freight trains,
oannot be doubted. The prophetical suggestions in
English patents of what oan be done, when no one has
ever teBted by aotual and hard experience and under the
stress of competition the truth of these suggestions,
or the praotioal difficulties in the way of their ac¬
complishment, or even whether the suggestions are feas¬
ible, do not oarry oohviotion of the truth of these
frequent and vague statements. The nature and oharao-
' ter of the invention of 376,837 (the patent in suit)
were, in the reoord heretofore before this Court, put
to rigorous tests by examination and oross- examination
in Court} and the result which was then reached is not
shaken by merely a single sentence in the English paten:.
-24-
An interesting contribution to the discussion of the
rule of low under consideration iB that furnished hy Judge
Core in the recent case of Badiaoho Anilin & Soda Fabriic y.
Kails (94 B.E. 165). The invention was a blue dye stuff
made by washing safranine-azo-naphthol until the impurities
which rendered it insoluble were washed out and the oempound
became soluble. The patent was on the ubo of the soluble
safranine-azo-naphthol as a blue dye stuff. The anticipa¬
ting German patent met the conditions of the patent in suit
if ' the produot of the German patent was a soluble one. The
German patent itself stated that the produot was Insoluble,
but the defendants Insisted that • that was an error in the
description, beoause the produot was in faot soluble. Judge
Goxe said, regarding thiB contention:
’‘If prior patents and publications can be recon¬
structed by extrinsic evidence to fit the exigencies
of the oase, the enquiry will no longer be confined to
what the publication oommunicates to the public, but
it will be transferred to an endeavor to ascertain what
its author intended to communicate. The question is,
'what does the •gublisatleu- prior publication say? Hot
what it might hav.e said or what it Should have said.
The Court has simply to consider what the publication in
question has contributed to the art. If it fails to
show the invention which it is said to anticipate, the
: oontention that itB author knew enough to write an an¬
ticipation and intended to do so, was grotesquely ir¬
relevant. Were suoh a rule established, the law upon
this subjeot would be thrown into inextrioable oonfu-
I Another oontention of the defendants was that sinoe the
safranine-azo-naphthol is made soluble by simply washing th<
impurities out of it, and sinoe that was an obvious thing t<
do, there was no invention after the use of safranine-azo-
naphthol had been suggested for .a blue dye stuff to use it
in the soluble fora, oven if the prior suggestion to use it
as a dye stuff had referred to the insoluble form. Judge
Goxe disposes of this argument by convincing reasoning.
Among other illustrations he gives one particularly perti-
-88-
nent to the present oaae:
"For example, should Borne material he discovered
which solves the Btorage battery problem, it is hardly
to be presumed that he who confers this benefit upon
mankind will be denied a patent baaause the material
on whioh he operated was well known and his prooeBB
had been used before on other materials to produoe dif¬
ferent results. "
Judge Coxe had decided a number of Btorage battery oases,
and he seleoted this illustration as one whioh would be ao-
oepted without question. Edison has oonf erred that benefit
upon mankind by his investigations oulminating in the inven¬
tion described in the present application.
Judge Coxe's decision in the blue dye oase was sus¬
tained by the Circuit Court of Appeals (104 E.R. 802), which
stated the rule of law applioable to prior patents and de¬
scriptions to bs that — -
"that deBorlption must be suoh as to show that the arti¬
cle described in the patent can be certainly arrived at
by following the description (Atlantic Co. v. Parker,
16 Blatoh. 295; Bed. Cas. So. 625) without the assis¬
tance of looal prior knowledge or local prior use in
the foreign country where the description was published.
The oase of Atlantlo Co. v. Parker referred to by
the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Cirouit in the
quotation Juet made, is a well considered oase of Judge
Blatdhford on one of Nobels dynamite patents, where Nobels
produot would have been found in a prior description if a
person, in attempting to praotioe that prior description,
had selected, for the "common Swedish gun powder" referred
to in the prior description, a definite one of a number of
gun powders embraced by the general language employed.
Judge Blatohford, in rejecting the prior description as an
anticipation, said:
“The prior deBorlption, to Invalidate the patent,
muat be suoh as to show that the artiole described in
the patent can be oertalnly arrived at by following
the ■ prior description: and it is not enough to show
that by the luoky aooident of taking gun powder of the
^ality, a oompound may be obtained which is un¬
like that indicated by such description. "
-26-
In aonsidering the sufficiency of a prior desorip-
tion to anticipate a ohemioal product or proooas incapable
of illustration by drawings, It is audbtauDz evident that
; the description being unaided by illustration, as it would
be in the case of an invention relating to apparatus, the
Court must find the invention described with absolute ac-
ouraoy by the language of the description; otherwise prac¬
titioners of the art oannot reach the result without experi-
mant. So in chemical oases, the Courts have applied the
rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Seymour v. Osborns
with greater severity than in mechanical oases. In con¬
sidering the analogous proposition as to what definiteness
of description would bo required in a ohemioal patent to
a
support the claim and make the patent Nvalid one, the Courts
have also applied a rigid rule. These latter oases are
pertinent to the present enquiry, baoauae, as stated by
Judge Coxe in the blue dye stuff esse (94 I’.R. 167) :
"A description whioh is insufficient to support a
patent can hardly be relied on as an anticipation. In
each instance the same precision is required."
A few of these oases will be referred to.
In ?ood v. Underhill (6 How. 1, 8), the Supreme
Court, in discussing a patent for a new compound for making
brick or tile, held that "the patent would be void" if the
proportions of the oompowrid war ^ etatgd. vaguely Jeciausp _
"*W one oould use the -invention without asoertaining by
experiment the exact, proportion of' the different in¬
gredients required'’,
and the patent was declared •invalid on this ground.
On the same ground the patents wsra declared invalid
by the Supreme Court in. Tyler v. Boston (7 Vail. 327), Btad
t. Jeantet (129 U.S. 883). and Howard v. Detroit Stove Worica
(180 tT.S. 164).
-27-
In the Inoandesoont Lamp Patent (169 U.S. 468), the
Supreme Oourt had before it the Sawyer & Man patent on in-
oandeseent electric lamps. This patent described specifi¬
cally the use of carbonized paper as the incandescent con¬
ductor, and made general statements that fibrous vegetable
materials generally could be used for the purpose. It in¬
cluded a broad claim to the incandescent conductor of a oar-
bonlaed fibrous or textile material. The defendant’s lamp
waB Edison's lamp having an inoandeaoent conductor made of
carbonized bamboo. It appeared in the ease that only a
few of the vegetable fibers were suitable for the purpose,
and that Edison had hit upon bamboo after an investigation
of over six thousand vegetable growths, resulting in finding
that only two or three were at all suitable. The Court
said (p. 473) :
[ “WaB everybody then precluded by this broad claim
j from mating further investigation? We think, not . “
Again (p. 474):
“The question really is, whether the imperfectly
suooesBful experiments of Sawyer and Man with carbonized
paper and wood oarbon, conceding all that is olaimed
for them, authorized them to put under tribute the re¬
sults of the brilliant discoveries made by others."
Again (same page):
"Under these circumstances, to hold that one who
had discovered that a certain fibrous or textile mate¬
rial answered the required purpose, should obtain the
right to exoludo everybody from the whole domain of
fibrous and textile materials and thereby shut out any
further efforts to disoovor a better specimen of that
olass than the patentee had employqd, would bo an un¬
warranted extension of his monopoly and operate rather
to discourage than to promote invention. ir Sawyer
and Mart had, discovered that a certain oarhonized paper
would answer the purpose, their olalm to all carbonized
paper would perhaps not beextravagantj but the fact
that paper happens to belong to the fibrous kingdom
did not invest them with sovereignty over this entire
kingdom, and thereby praotieally limit other experi¬
menters to the domain of minerals."
Of the numerous Cirouit Court oases on tho same
proposition, only two will bs referred to.
-38-
In Veiling v. Crane (14 S’.R. 571), a patent for an
improved composition resembling horn said that it was oom-
posed of ehellao and vegetable or animal fiber, and at an¬
other point, of ehellao and cotton, wool or other animal or
■vegetable fiber. Judge Rixon held the patent void, point¬
ing out (p, 573):
"An attempt has been made to limit the construction
of these specifications to an article formed from the
mixture of ehellao with cotton f look in the proportions
named in the patent. The reason of sudh an attempt
is obvious. If it fairly includes in the materials
to be used all animal or vegetable fibers, the pat¬
ent must be declared void for olaiming too muoh. "
And again (p. 576):
"It is a fact which ought not to be overlooked that
the specifications of the Veiling patent give no hint
to the public that in using the patent any better mate¬
rial can be obtained from the ootton than from the wool.
In Matheaon v. Campbell (78 T’.R. 910), the Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Seoond Circuit had before it the
"naphthol black" patent covering a coloring compound produc¬
ed from coal tar; The patent stated that the oompound
might be produced by the employment of "any aulpho aoid of
any radioal", a term which was sufficiently broad to oover
one hundred, possibly as many as five hundred, different
aulpho acids, and it was proved and conceded that very many,
in fact nearly all, of these will not, when treated according
to the patentee's process, produoe the patentee's color.
The patent, however, did describe specifically the employ¬
ment of one radioal which was operative, a radical however
not used by the defendant. The question was, whether the
general claim of the patent to fa new product, tho herein
described dye stuff or coloring matter of a black oolor and
oapable of dyeing shades of dark blue" could be supported
by the description. The Court said:
-29-
"In other wordB, having himself experimented only
with three or four bodies out of a group of hundreds,
he proposes to Bet himself in the pathway of future
experimenters with any or all of the other bodies, end,
as the result of each new experiment is disclosed, will
fire away at it, oaloulatlng to 'hit it if it iB a deor
and misB-if it is a oow' • • • The inventors
did not make any auoh 'broad discovery' . They made
the specific discovery that some di-sulpho ao!4s treat¬
ed aooordlng to their process would produoe their
produot. The broad discovery that all sulpho acids
may be thus transformed, they certainly did not dis¬
cover, for it is apparently undisooverablo since most
of them cannot be thus transformed by the process of
the patent. Some future experimenter will have to
make some new discovery and invent some new process
before these other sulpho acids can be transformed into
naphthol blank. We are referred to no authority and
know of no principle which will sustain the complain¬
ant's contention that he can thus, in the language of
the Circuit Court, 'speculate on the equivalents "of hi*
olaimed invention and thereby oblige the public to re¬
sort to experiments in order to determine the scope of
the claims of his patent'.11
MICHALOTOKI PATENT.
In considering the Abel patent, it in, of oourao,
very difficult to view the reference in any other light than
that which we hays at the present time. It nay "be stated ,
however, that, from all sources of information at applioant *s
disposal, it was not known prior to his invention that the
hydrated oxides of nickel and of cobalt did' have the remarka¬
ble property of passing from lower to higher super-peroxide
stages of oxidation and vloe versa, when subjected to electro -
lytic action In an alkaline solution. If Abel had made this
disoovery, it seems remarkable, to. cay the least, that the
chemical world allowed it to pass unnoticed. In the consid¬
eration of the Abel patent, the test, of course, is whether
or not at the time of its grant a s^f full' anil oidar
description of the process was given the world to enable a
skilled person to carry it into effect without independent
experiment. it is generally a difficult end largely specu¬
lative matter to answer such, a question in view of present
knowledge, or, in other words, to pint ourselves in the posi¬
tion of a skilled person at that tike. Fortunately, how¬
ever, the present oa»« offers an exception to the usual rule.
Mlchalowski, whOBC patent was applied- for in 1899,
was fully .Informed of the Abel patent, or rather the corres¬
ponding German patent to Dun, No. 38,883 (Abel being the
name of the patent solicitor to whom the invention was com¬
municated at London). Miohalo^ki, in His British patent of
record, said:-
*The endeavor to replace the heavy lead stor¬
age batteries by batteries of lighter material Has
led to the discovery of the alkali-siiiie battery.
By the use of sino in place of the negative plate . of
spongy load, the negative electrode becomes three
times se light 'as if made of lead) but hitherto, the
requirement of .a Bui.tabla polarisator as a substi-
for _ the plate peroxide ' of - lead ramains'.uji-
aatinfied. the fact, theft the alkdll-sino. batteries
Iwra 'bo an known for nsarly twenty years without tar¬
ing boon able to replace the lead batteries in spite
of the moot diligent effort*, ear-res as a proof that
an actually suitable material for thV'p'oBltlve elec¬
trode haa not hitherto been discovered. TUf'fo'rfa in
this direction have not been wanting, and UP to now
almost every existing metallic oxide (not excepting
aluminum and manganese oxides) have been proposed as
depolarisators for this purpose. Ae an example of
these inventions may be cited the German patent Ho.
. 38,383 of Alfred Dun of Frankfort a.H. (correspond¬
ing to the Abel patent of reoord). In this patent
oxides of copper, cobalt, nickel, bismuth, manganese
and others have been used, evidently, however, withe-
out any indication that the inventor tae made a trial
of the effect of these bodies, because had he done
bo he would at once have recognised that only one' of
these oxides distinguishes itself from the others irt
every respect by its distinctive and valuable proper
ties. This is oxide of nickel (BigG^). Further,
throughout the electrochemical literature published
UP to date, no indication of its action is to be
found, and yet nevertheless the fact that it is the
only one amongst all hitherto known metallic oxides
which is formed from nickel sub-oxide with absorptloi
of heat and is oonceauently an endothermic compound,
Bhould have attracted attention. For such a body
*111* usod as a depol&risator, render poa-
sible the complete transformation of the heat of ox¬
idation of the. sine into electric energy, whilst in
the case of all other depolarizator* , whioh are of
exothermic origin, a large proportion of the heat of
Oxidation of the sine is wasted in the reduction of
the depolarisator. *
We aujtoiit that if anybody oould have attained suc¬
cess from the Abel English patent or the Dun German patent,
it was Hichalowaki, since from purely theoretical reasons ho
appeared to recognise the value of the depolarizing proper¬
ties of oxide of nickel. Two conclusive criticisms as to
Michalowskl can be mada:-
Eirst, with the NichalowSki call, the nickel perox¬
ide (HiaQfc) is opposed t,o a zino plate. When sino is em¬
ployed a* an active element, the battery is assumed to be in
a charged condition, as, for example, in the La lands battery,
; whore a sine plate is opposed to a copper oxide depolarisor.
Ho one would think of oharglng suoh a battery, because, ae
s tated, the sine 1* already in a charged and aotiire condi-
“ If, therefore, Miohalowaki intended to ubo the oxide
of nickel aa a depolarizer without firBt raialng.it to a
highor stage of oxidation, ho would moot with complete fail¬
ure, since ouch oxide of itself haa no depolarising proper¬
ties whatever.
Second, with the Miohalowski process, the nickel ox¬
ide la formed in every inatance hy heat reactions. It is
not hydrated, hut is anhydrous. Actual tests before the.
Examiner have demonstrate* the faot that when the oxide is
bo made, even when aa attempt In made to charge it, it is. :
not raised to a higher state, hut ia practically insert ah*
;of no value. Theoretically it should work hut it does not
do so.
The Miohalowski patent is specifically distinguished
from in the specification, those differences are pointed. out,
they have been proved to the satisfaction of the Primary. Ex¬
aminer, and in his letter of rejection of Kay 7th he states
that the reference will he withdrawn when the data upon which
the statements of its Imperativeness are baaed have been
specified. It eeeras to us that tha statements In the spec¬
ification that blaek oxide of nixkol will not aot aa a do-
polar is er and that when made by heat reactions it oannpt be
further oxidised pughi to be accepted an sufficient. The ,
principal value of the Kichalowski patent is to show that ,
having carefully read and considered the Abel reference,, the
later inventor was atill unable to achieve suooese. Hiohal-
oW^ki must be regarded as a skilled person to whom the Abel
patent was submitted and who failed absolutely to scours any
useful effect from anything which Abel described. It seems
t,o ua, therefore, that when the Abel patent ie considered :,
alone with its many errors and insufficiencies, and when both
patents are considered together with the known relation ..b.e-
tween the two inventors, neither patent can be stwoteefully
a.3
rolled on as an anticipation of the olnims on the improved
depolarizer.
HAMILTON PATBHT.
With, applicant's battery the active materials* as
stated, are oarried within receptacles or pookets having,
thin perforated walls. During the charging and die charging
operations the aotive materials are increased and diminished
in bulk. This is especially true of the depolarizing nickel
oxide, which in addition swells considerably by absorption
when first immersed in the electrolyte. It is, of course,
: necessary that the aotive materials -should be maintained ..in
good electrical contact with the walla of the pockets or ,
receptacles at all times, because otherwise the efficiency
of the battery will be correspondingly affected. Applicant
therefore makes the pockets or receptacles of thin, highly
elastic metal, such as spring steel nickel-plated, so as to
be unaffected by the electrolyte, and the bulk of the aotive
material is so proportioned relative to the elasticity of
the pocket walls that any changes in the volume of the active
material will be maintained within the elastic limits of
suoh walls. The construction, though simple, is of the
highest importance in a Commercial sense. The Hamilton pat¬
ent describes several small minor details of improvement in
the ordinary Lalande primary cell, using aino and copper ox¬
ide.
In referring to the modifications shown in figures
3 and 4 the patentee states that the cathode consists of a
oup "of wire gauze or perforated sheet metal, as copper*,
and that the depolarise? is carried or supported therein * in
a lcose or granular few.* This 1b not an anticipation of
the invention or of the terms of claims 27 and 31. W ttia
first place, a cup of ifira gauze or perforated chest copper
■ ■ -:3V-
would not Toe highly elastic, and could not he need with a
Storage battery of the type BUggestod by applicant. In. the
second place, since the Hamilton oell is a primary battery,
there oan be no expanaion in hulk of the oopper oxide, hut
only a contraction thereof as it in reduced to the metallic
State. Being granular in firm, the particles will b imply
»,ettle within the cup as they contract in size, so that an
jelastio walled receptacle would not he necessary.
JimgCT,R BATBHJ.
The Jungner patent describes a reversible cell em-'
[ploying silver peroxide an tho depolarizer, with oopper as'
the electro -negative material. The patent states that the
| depolarizer
“in powder is pressed into a net of nickel wire arid
made to adhere by any suitable binding material, its
porosity bolng preserved 5 » Tho negative, pole
is formed by a Copper wire net, into which finely
divided copper is pressed, - as -in the other elac-
trodg>* (p. 5, line 16 et sefrD •
|We submit that the statements quoted can have no other’ mean,
irig than that the actiVe materials are made to adhere to. -the
enclosing, metallio net l)y BOtte suitable binding material:
which does not affect the.,poroBity of the aotive material.
Kiis being so* there is, of Course, no necessity of using "ion
-• elastio walled receptacle, since the receptacle and the.ac-
material will adhere together and cannot separate under
y ^ offset,, of expansion and contraction. A net madeibff|| •
l l‘^kel or copper wire wotOA ^ertainly be almost devoid of.;.'.
; daBtloity and any considerable: variation in bulk of the/atf-
! ;'ive material would be highly objectionable, unless* ast^e
: latent states, a binding. material ia employed to pane#. W'
•qtive Substance- to adh»r» to the.nieJcal or copper wires;’-/',
"n rt»**n* l*sht the Jungner' patent may be regarded, we/ba-
4*** it oaraiqt be. considered a good reference to , the;
^ ' • • 34- ‘ ' ' " '
I
. specific language of the claima against which it, hao been
particularly oited.
OONChTBIOHS.
V/e have shown that Edison has produced a battery of
a new type and have pointed out the principal difficulties
•which were encountered by him in its development. It has
been explained how, as a roault of experimental discovery, a i
oleo troly t ioally active iron oompownd was at, laBt found
which oould be usrsd as the oxidizable element of a reveraibli
coll employing an alkaline solution} that, iron oompound is
either ferrous oxide or some oxide of iron closely analogous
, thereto. We have indicated how, as a result also of discov
ery, it was found that the hydrated oxide of nickel or oo-
bait could be raised to a condition of oxidation actually, be¬
yond its peroxide state, and when in that condition possosso.
valuable depolarising properties , not possessed by nickel or
ooba.lt iii previously known forms. Such a result, we be¬
lieve, was an entirely now discovery in chemistry} it was
certainly a new discovery In the art with which we are deal¬
ing.
In considering the halande patent we pointed out
that the "reduced iron" described by him was unquestionably
used only as a mechanical carrier for the hydrogen, the lat¬
ter metal being oxidized on discharge. Even if such an.
assumption is not the correct one , we have explained that
suoh reduoed iron cannot be; oxidized eleotrolyt ioally, and
that faot was demonstrated by experiment to the satisfaction
of the Examiner.
Bo far as the German patent of Poliak ie concerned,
we have pointed out that the cell described by the patentee
is hopelessly inoperative and have shown why no useful rosull
oeuld be obtained therefrom. It has also been explain*®
that tfte ferrio oxide oleotrodoa described by Poliak are ab¬
solutely inert to elootrioal action in an alkaline solution,
•which. fact has also been demount rated to the Examiner.
We then took up the English patent of Abel and
pointed out its many errors of fact; we explained that of
the thirty depolarising materials desoribed by him only two
could be used; we called attention to th9 fact that In no
instance did the patentee seek to carry the oxidation of a
depolarizer beyond the peroxide state, nor did he- apparently
recognize the possibility of doing so, and we finally Bhowed
that Abel's apparent intention was not to oxidize the depo¬
larizer eleotrolytically, but to effect that result by the
addition of a separate oxidizing material.
Regarding Miohalowski, . we hare pointed out the rela¬
tion between that patentee and Abel, who preceded. him, and
hare drawn the conclusion that if anyone ought, to have at¬
tained success from Abel’s work Miohalowski was that person.
We showed further, and the fact has been demonstrated to
the satisfaction of the Examiner, that Miohalowski did not
attain success, although he specifically recognised the
theoretical value of niokel oxide as a depolarizer. Our
criticisms of the Miohalowski patent were that the black
nickel peroxide obtained by him could not of itself apt as *
depolarizer whan opposed to a zinc plate; and second, that
suok nickel peroxide oould not be raised to a super-peroxld*
state because, as described by Miohalowski, it is anhydrous,
and, therefore, praotioally inert.
In considering the Hamilton patent we pointed out
that it relates to a primary battery, wherein the ftepolariasr
could not undergo an expansion in bulk; that a reoeptaOl*
of oopper wire or sheet copper is employed ih which th*
I granular topper oxide is placed, and that in discharging
3 7
/
V
the metallic copper particlee would simply gravitate to the
■bottom of the receptacle, so that there would he no necessi¬
ty of making the latter with elastic walls. Finally, in
our consideration of the Jungnar patent, we explained that,
both of the active materials of the patentee are oavwed to
adhere by a separate; binding substance to nickel or copper
nets,, so that no possiblo separation between the two could,
take place however much the active materials might expand or
.contract.
Ve submit, therefore, that the case stands on a
footing of absolute, novelty, that the claims are not met,
- either in terras or in.:, substance, and that the references 'of
record are as foreign to. the actual invention whioh appli¬
cant has made as if they had boen taken out of another art.
We believe, therefore, that the case should be allowed and
that the decision of the Examiner should be reversed.
SffcCUAstl. *T ~
Of Counsel.
Hew York, May 14, 1901.
Room No.-ldjw
' 1.ui|cn(
3 of mine, an
department of the interior.
United States Patent Office,
Washington, e
Thomas A. Edison,
Care Dyer, Edmonds & Dyer,
Edison Laboratory,
Orange, IT. J.
Please find below a communication from the EXAMINER in charge of your application.
1-To. 49,453, filed Mar. 1, 1901, -"Reversible Galvanic Battery".
Commissioner of Pa
The letter filed May 7th, 1901, and argument filed May 9th,
1901, have been entered and considered.
' Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20,
21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 are finally rejected upon
the references of record for the reasons set forth in last of¬
fice letter.
In response to applicant's request, the requirement of
division is postponed until after the decision upon appeal.
The Examiner's statement to the appeal which was filed May 9th,
1901, will be sent forward shortly.
OHITEB BTATEB PATENT OFEIOE.
In re Application of Thoms A. Edison,
Piled March 1, 1901, Ser. Ho. 49,453,
"Reversible Oalvanio Battery".
: Before the
: Examiners-in-Chief
:
! On Appeal .
i
■ . + Biv. 3, Kay IP, 1901
Examiner’s Statement.
Appeal is taken from the rejection of the following claims
1. Ah active element for an alkaline reversible galvanic
battery, comprising; a conducting; support and a hydrated oxide-
of a specific magnetic metal other than iron carried by said
support, substantially as set forth.
9., An active element for an alkaline reversible galvanic
battery, comprising a conducting support, a hydrated oxide of
a specific magnetic metal other than iron carried by said sup¬
port, and an inert conducting- material intimately mixed with
said oxide, substantially as set forth.
4. An active element for an alkaline reversible galvanic
battery, comprising a conducting support and an oxide of nickel
carried thereby having more oxygen than Hi2<>3, substantially as
set forth.
5. An active element for an alkaline reversible galvanfte
battery, comprising a conducting support, an oxide of nickel
carried thereby having more oxygen than Hi2 <h , and an inert
conducting material intimately mixed with, said oxide, substan¬
tially as set forth.
7. An active element for an alkaline reversible galvanic
battery, comprising a conducting support and a hydrated oxide
of nickel carried thereby, substantially as set forth.
8. An active element for an alkaline reversible galvanic
battery, comprising a conducting support, a, hydrated oxide of
nickel carried thereby, and an inert conducting material inti -
mately mixed with said hydrated oxide, substantially as set
forth.
10. An active oxidixable element for an alkaline revers¬
ible galvanic battery, comprising a conducting support and
electrolytioaiiy active, finely divided iron carried thereby,
and cspable of being oxidised on d isohar^ing, substantially as
set forth.
Ill An active deoxidisable element for an alkaline re¬
versible galvanic battery, comprising a conducting support and
finely divided ferrous oxide carried thereby, and capable of
being deoxidised on charging, substantially as set forth!;
12. An active oxidixable element for an alkaline revers¬
ible galvanic battery, comprising a conducting support and\ on
oxide of iron carried thereby electrolytioaiiy reducible, to
the metallic state uppmchanging, substantially as set forth!
13. In ft reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline elec¬
trolyte, a conducting support carrying finely divided Iron when
chained, and another conducting s upport carrying an oxide of
a specific magnetic metal other than iron and capable of fur¬
nishing oxygen for the oxidation of the iron on discharge,
substantially as set forth.
14. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline elec¬
trolyte, a conducting support carrying finely divided oxide of
iron whan discharged and another conducting support carrying an
oxide of a specific magnetic metal other than iron and capable
of storing oxygen on charging, substantially as set forth.
15. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline electro¬
lyte, a conducting support carrying finely divided iron when
ohargod, another conducting support' carrying an oxide of a spe¬
cific magnetic metal other than iron and capable of furnishing
oxygen for the oxidation of the iron on discharge, and on inert
conducting material intimately mixed with said oxide, substan¬
tially as set forth,
19. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline elec¬
trolyte, a conducting support carrying finely divided iron when
charged, and another conducting support carrying oxide of nickel
capable of furnishing oxygen for the oxidation of the iron on
discharge, substantially as set forth.
20. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline elec¬
trolyte, a conducting support carrying finely divided oxide of
iron when discharged, and another conducting support, carrying
an oxide of niokel, substant. iully as set forth.
21. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline elec¬
trolyte, a conducting support carrying finely divided iron when
charged, and another conducting support carrying oxide of nickel
having when charged electrolyt ically more oxygen than IU2O3,
substantially as set forth ,
22. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline elec¬
trolyte, a conducting support carrying finely divided iron when
charged, and another conducting support carrying a hydrated
oxide of nickel, substantially as set forth.
27. An active element for an alkaline reversible galvanic
battery, comprising a perforated conducting receptaole having
elastic walls and an aotivo material therein engaged, by said
walls with an elastio pressure, substantially as set forth.
28. An active element for an alkaline reversible galvan¬
ic buttery* comprising a perforated conducting receptacle having
elastic walls and an oxide of a specific magnetic metal other
than iron in said receptacle, said oxide being capable of fur¬
nishing oxygen electrolyt ically upon discharge, substantially
as set forth,
29. An active element for an alkaline reversible galvanic
battery, comprising a perforated conducting receptacle having
elastic walls and an oxide of nickel carried thereby and having
when charged electrolyt ically more oxygen than Hi/'so substan¬
tially as set forth, '2- 3
30. An active element for an alkaline reversible gal¬
vanic battery, comprising a perforated conducting receptacle
having elastic walls and u hydrated oxide of nickel carried
(3)
by cald receptacle and encaged by said walla with an elaBtlo
pres mire, substantially as set forth.
31. A reversible galvanic battery, a suitable electrolyte,
an active material therein whioh In charging or discharging
is alternately increased or decreased in bulk, a perforated
conducting receptacle holding the mterial and having elastio
walls whioh at all times engage the material with an elastic
pressure, and smother conducting support carrying a different
active mterial, substantially as sot forth.
32. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline elec¬
trolyte, a conducting support carrying finely divided iron when
charged, another conducting support comprising a receptacle
having elastic walls, and an oxide of a specific magentio motal
other than iron carried within said receptacle and engaged by
the walls thereof with an elastic pressure, said oxide being
capable of furnish inf/oxygen for tho oxidation of the iron on
discharge, substantially as set forth.
33. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline elec¬
trolyte, a conducting support carrying finely divided oxi ;e of
iron when discharged, another conducting support comprising a
receptacle having elastio walls, and an oxide of a specific mag¬
netic metal other than iron carried within said receptacle and
engaged by the walls with an elastic pressure and capable of
storing oxygen on chatting, substantially as set forth.
The references cited are:
U. 3. 274,110, Mar. 20, 1883, Be I.alandeY^/
U. s, 610,885, Feb. 21, 1889, Hamilton!
British 1862, Feb. 5, 1087, Abel;
British 15,370, July 26, 1899, Kiohalowski;
Oeman 107,727, Mov. 29, 1899, Poliak.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 were rejected upon Abel. Abel
discloses the use of a conducting support, showing applied there¬
to .hydrates of the oxides of nickel or cobalt whioh ore mag¬
netic metals. The use of inert conducting material mixed with
the oxides is also disclosed lines 4, 5, 6, page 2. As to
claims 4 and 5, it is stated that the hydrates of the Oxide b
employed have the property of passing to a higher stage of ox¬
idation by combining with oxygen (lines 21, 22, page 1).
Claims 10, 11, and 12 were rejected upon Pelalande and
Poliak . In lines 36, 37 of page 1, BeLalande states that "Iron
reduced, or, as well, copper obtained by precipitation or electro¬
chemical reduction" my be employed as the actlvo electrode or
anode of the cell. It has been asserted that the Bole purpose
of the noduoed iron is to absorb hydrogen but it is thought that
this is true only of the plat inum or palladium mentioned in
(3)
line 85, an these two metuln are commonly employed for this pur¬
pose and are not oxidizable, while electrolytioally reduced
iron is readily oxidizable and '.will be-- alternately reduced
and oxidized during charging and discharging of the call-
in one condition it therefore meets the terms of claim 10 find
in the other the terras of oluims 11, 12. Poliak describes the
use of negative electrodes of oxidized iron find positives of iron*
made from a mass of pulverized iron or iron in an oxidized fora
pressed into shape and formed electrolytioally in a sodium hy¬
drate solution into negative and positive plates. These elec¬
trodes may be used in an alkaline electrolyte as disclosed in
the last paragraph of the <' escriptiop, find are said to be al¬
ternately oxidized and reduced during use (lines V, 0, 9) .
The reduced iron electrode of Poliak is considered to anticipate
claim 10 and the oxidized one claims 11 and IS, if capable of
alternate oxidation and reduction.
Claims 18, 14, 15, 19, SO, SI, 32 and 33 are considered to
bo met by Abel find Michalowski, taken with PeTialunde and Poliak
since if fcach of the individual electrodes 1b anticipated for
the reasons above set forth, then a battery composed of these
electrodes v/hich produces no result other than those due to the
added effects of the two eleotrodes is fairly anticipated by the
patents cited agutast the individual electrodes, taken together.
In the battery claimed neither element modifies the action of
the other tmd either one of them may be replaced by another
electrode of the same general nature without modifying the ac¬
tion of the other electrode. At the bottom of page 2 of the
specification it is stated that "the oxygen-furnishing element
may be employed in connection with other oxidizable elements,
while the new oxidizable element may be employed in connection
with other oxygen-furnishing elements". Those claims are ac¬
cordingly not thought to cover such a combination of elements
(4)
as will preclude the olting of Joint references. These claim
are not limited to the use of a hydrated oxide and Michalowskd ,
who discloses only non-hydmted oxides, anticipates the oxide
element 'of the claimB ns well <i» Abel, who discloses the use
of hydrated oxides. The receptacle havingelast ic walls re¬
ferred to in, claims 32, S3, is disclosed by BeRulande . Claim
22, which in limited to the use of hydrated oxide of nickel, is
rejected for the same reasons as the claims just discussed with
the exception that the Hichalowski paten t is not cited, aga inst
it.
Claims 27 and 31 are rejected upon Be* aland e and Hamilton.
Bach of these patents discloses the use of a mot all ic receptacle
for containing the depolarizer. That of BoBulande may be of
iron, copper brass wire gauze (lines 62, 53, pace 1) and
that of Hamilton of copper (lines 48, 52, 60, 63, pace 2). All
of these materials would form an elastic receptacle and the de¬
polarizer contained therein would therefore be engagod with an
elastic pressure during changes in volume occurring during the
operation' of ‘the battery.
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected upon BeBalande and Hamilton
taken in connection with Abel and Hichulowski on the ground
that no7 invention is |involved in employing the receptacle of
Delitiiande pr Jhwnilioni to hold a nickel oxide depolarizer when
it!' is olj io retain a copper oxide depolarizer in the same way.
rclaio 30 is rejected upon BeBaliinrto and Ibunilton tak-n with Abel
for the some reasons.
/ It is thought that the rejection of the claims should be
affirmed.
Respectfully submitted,
(: y
Rx*r Biv. 3,
(5)
Wo. 23,500. U. s. Patent Office,^tOUZ^tL , 1901.
Before the Examiners- in-Chief , on Appeal'. JIJW
Application of Thomas A. Edison for a patent
provument in a. Reversible 'Galvanic Battery, filed March i, 1901.
Sopifil. Ho. 49,453.
Messrs. Pyor, Edmonds £; Byer for appoll'aht. ’ "|n
The claims appeal od are:
"!• An active element for tin alkaline reversible' galvanic
battery, comprising a conducting support and a hydrated oxide of a
specific magnetic metal other than iron carried by said support,
substantially as set. forth.
"2. An active element for an alkaline reversible galvanic
battery, comprising a conducting support, a hydrated Oxide of a
specific magnetic metal other than iron carried by said support,
and an inert conducting material intimately mixed with said oxide,
substantially us set forth.- . .
"A. An active element of an alkaline reversible galvanic
battery, comprising a conducting support and an oxide of nickel
carried thereby having moro oxygon than KioOx, substantially as sot
forth. '
"5. An active element for an alkaline reversible galvanic
buttery, comprising a conducting support, an oxide of nickel car¬
ried thereby having more oxygon than HigOa, and an inert conducting
material intimately mixed vii th said oxide, substantially as sot
forth.
"7. An active element for an alkaline reversible galvanic
battery, comprising a conducting support' and .-a hydrated- oxide of
nickel curried thereby, substantially as set forth.
"0. An active element for. an alkaline roversibio.galvanic
battery, comprising a conducting support, a hydrated, oxide "of nick¬
el carried thereby, and an inert conducting material, intimatoly ,
mixed with said hydrated oxide, substantially W net 'forth.'
"10. An iictive oxidizablo clement for on alkalino reversi-
c... B at t. tips, comp.rls i ng a conducting support, and electro- ,...
ly tically active, 'finoiy '-divfde’BrTron 'carried thoroby aijd* cap able''
of being oxidized on discharging, substantially as sot forth.
"11. An active deoxidizable element for an alkaline rovoru-
iblo galvanic battery, comprising a conducting support' and' firioly
divided ferrous oxide; can-led. thereby, -and capable of boihg dooxi-
dized on charging, substantially- as • set forth.
"12. An active oxidizablo element for an aikalinb i
bis galvanic battery, comprising a conducting support and an oxido
of iron carried thereby elo otrolytically reducible to the metallic
state upon charging, substantially an set forth.
A ">
."$/■ "13. In a reversible galvanic batt.ory, an alkaline oleotrd-
}/' lyto, a conducting support carrying finely divided iron when charg¬
ed, and another conducting support carrying an oxide of a specific
ra (7i otic metal other than iron and ccpablo of furnishing oxygen for
the oxidation of the iron on discharge, substantially as set forth.
"14. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline electro¬
lyte, a conducting support carrying finely divided oxide of iron
when discharged and another conducting support carrying an oxide of
a specific magnetic metal othor than iron and capable of storing
oxygon on charging, substantially as sot forth.
"16. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline electro¬
lyte, a conducting support carrying finely divided iron wh on charg¬
ed, another conducting support carrying an oxide of a specific mag¬
netic metal other than iron and capable Of furnishing oxygen for
the oxidation of the iron on discharge, an an inert conducting ma¬
terial intimately mixed with said oxide, substantially as sat forth
"19. In a reversible galvanic baitery, on alkaline electro¬
lyte, a conducting support carrying finely divided iron when charg¬
ed, and another conducting support carrying oxido of nickol capable
of furnishing oxygon for th c oxidation of the iron on discharge,
substantially as sot forth.
"HO. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline electro¬
lyte, a conducting support carrying finely divided oxide of iron
when discharged, and another conducting support carrying an oxide
of nickel, substantially as sat forth.
"21. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline eluctro-
lytu, a conducting support carrying finely divided iron when charg¬
ed, and another conducting support carrying oxide of nickel having
when chargod ole otrolytically more oxygon than JTi^Og, substantially
as set forth.
"22. In a reversible galvanic battery, ar. alkaline oloctro-
lyte, a conducting support carrying finely divided iron when ohat'g-
ad, and another conducting support carrying a hydrated oxido of
nickol, substantially as set forth.
"2S. An aptivo element for an alkallno reversible galvanic
battery, comprising a perforated conducting receptacle having elas¬
tic walls and an active material therein ongagod by said walls with
an elastic pressure, substanti ally as set forth.
"215. An active element for an alkaline reversible galvanic
battery, comprising a perforated conducting receptacle having elas¬
tic walls and an oxide of a spoclfio magnetic metal othor. thata iron
in said receptacle, said oxide being capable of furnishing oxygen
electrolytically upon discharge, substantially as set forth.
"29, An active element for an alkaline reversible galvanic
battery, comprising a perforated conducting receptacle having elas¬
tic walls and ah oxide of nickel carried thoroby and having when
3
char® d elect.rolytin ally more oxyam than IIi203 substantially as
sot forth.
"30. An active element for an alkaline reversible galvanic
battery, comprising a perforated conducting recuptaclo having elas¬
tic vc alls and a hydratod oxido of nickel carried by said receptacle
and engaged by said walls with an elastic pressure, substantially
as sot forth.
"31. A reversible galvanic battery, a suitable electrolyte, •
an activo material therein which in char Ring or discharging is al¬
ternately increased or decreased in bulk, a perforated conducting
’roceptaclo holding the Material and having elastic walls which at
all times engage the material v;ith an elastic pressure, raid another
conducting support carrying a different activo material, substan¬
tially as set forth.
"32. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline electro¬
lyte, a conducting support, carrying finely divided iron when charg¬
ed, another conducting support comprising a receptacle having clas¬
tic walls, end an oxide of a specific magnetic, metal other than
iroji carried within said receptacle ana engaged by the walls there¬
of with an elastic pressure, said oxido being capablo of furnishing
oxygon for the oxidation of the iron on discharge, sub stantiallv as
sot forth. * '
"33. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline electro¬
lyte, a conducting support carrying finely divided oxido of iron
whun discharged, another conducting support comprising a receptacle
having elastic walls, mid an oxide of a specific magnetic metal
other than iron carried within said receptacle and engagod by tho
walls with .an elastic pressure and capable of storing oxygon on
charging, substantially as set forth."
file references aro patents to'1'
Do Inland a, March 20, 1883, TTo.274,110;
Hamilton, February 21, 1099, Ho. 019,00b;
British Patent a Mob. 1,862 of 1807 to Abel;,
16,370 of 1899 to Michalowski;
Oorman Patent ITO.107,727 of 1899 to Poliak.
77o agruo with tho Ex minor 1 a rejection of claims 1, 2, 4,
6, 7 and 0 as anticipated by the British patent to Abel.
This patent clearly describes an active element for an
alktlino reversible galvanic batt cry_^bn®^fSTh^>avcon«iiad't'i'ijg .-supfasc’
port (p. 4, lines 36-30) and a hydratod oxide of nickel or cobalt
carried by said support (see p.4, linos 20-26) , and an inart con¬
ducting material intimately mixed with said oxido (p.4, line 32).
The patent further states:
"Tho depolarizing substance consists of a metallic oxide
or peroxide insoluble in caustic alkali solution, or hydratos of
such oxides, which have tho property of passing to a higher stats
of oxidation by comb ini nr; with oxygon. in particular- . , , protox¬
ide, (,f) or oxide of nickel, protoxide of cobrdt, etc."
Tills British patent to Abel is a communication from tv/o
Germans , and the two principal prides of nickel aru in German re¬
ferred to as JTiekol monoxid (nickcloxydul) HiO, and nickel oxyd,
l!ia05 (soe Peklinc'a Hundv/Ortcnbuch der Chimio), so that the oxides
of nickel referred to aro AfiO, and ITiaOv,. (This is verified by tho
statements in German Patent No. 30,303 referred to in tho British
patent. No. 16,370 of 11399) Hydratos of both these oxides of nickel
are well known.
It is also known that there are higher oxides of nickel
than Hia03, Hehl'ing's Piet, above reforrod to alludes to one having
the formula 111407.
Platt’s Ttictiorary of Ckomiotry, 1(392, Vol.lII, p.50.2 also
states that there are indications of an oxide containing more oxy¬
gon' than HijjCj^i
Wi tli this knowledge in tho art, it seems to us that, the
applicant is not entitled to any of this group of claims. With
the information given by this Abel patent at his disposal and what
was known in the art, no invention was roquired to produce tho ele¬
ment claimed.
as
By following the directions of tho patent. to-.usoAan elec¬
trode a hydrated oxide of nickol mixed with carbon on a metal sup¬
port, tho claimed element, is necessarily produced.
This group of claims is lacking in novolty.
Hone of the oases cited by the appellant, authorize a con¬
trary holding.
In Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall., 555, tho Court said
. . "throe oxport v/itnessoB oxomlnod by tho complainants toe-
tify that neither the description nor the drawings of the sane, as
exhibited in that magazine, show anything wh i c.h is embodied in the
complainant's patent, and the court is of the same opinion".
And it was an ouch holding that the language cited in the appel¬
lant's brio? is based.
In the case before us wo find a disclosure of that which
the appellant, in claiming, and the question is whether because oth¬
er things are described which may not be so useful for the purposo
stated, the description of that which is useful ia not an anticipa¬
tion.
V/c know of no case v/arranting an affirmative answer to
the question.
In $ho ease of Welling v. Crane, Id Fed. Rep., 571 (cited
by appellant) instead of supporting tho appellant's position, seems
to be against it. In that case the Court said:-
"It may be gathered from tho foregoing reference to pat¬
ents antedating and anticipating the complainant's patent, that
there is no novelty in tho alleged invention of Willing, unless it
is novel and patentable to select two or thgeo from the largo num¬
ber of ingredients, any of which Westondarr (a prior patentee) says
nay bo used in tho manufacture of artificial ivory."
Ho in the ce.se before us, tho applicant's claim to inven¬
tion Teats upon the selection from a number of ingredients of cer¬
tain specified ones and using thorn in tho manner specified by the
patentee. When so used, they noceasarily produce the result Claim-
Claims 10, 11 and 12 are reject od upon t.ho patents to de
I.alande and to Poliak. Tho statement in tho de Lalandc patent re¬
lied upon by tho Ex ceil nor is as follows:
"The active electrode of the pile is constituted by a met¬
al capable of be ing- -attacked by tho exo4 ting-, liquid of t.ho pile
when the circuit is closod - for example, zinc, tin, lead, or a met'
al capable of fixing tho hydrogen, as palladium platinum, spongy
platinum, iron reduced, or, aB well, coppor obtained by precipita¬
tion or electro-chemical reduction. Those piloa are reversible -
that is to, say, capable of being recharged by an electric current
of sufficient electro-motive force."
As to this disclosure, tho applicant urges that the moan-
inn its that the "reduced iron is employee! solely for th u purpose of
fixing the hydrogen, which latter is the element to bo oxidized on
discharge" ; that "at best the specification is too obscure and
doubtful on the point to constitute a reference? and that further,
as a matter of fact, that spongy iron reduced by hydro non from dif¬
ferent salts is not oxidisablo to any considerable extent by the
current.
With those contentions we agree, and they are sufficient
to dispose of this patent as an anticipatory reference.
As t.o the Poliak patent, the applicant asserts that it
discloses an absolutely . inoperative device, for t.iio reason that
plates of '.ferric oxide prepared in the manner described by Poliak
can neither ho oxidized nor reduced by tko electrolytic action and
that no result is obtained, except that oxygen and hydrogen arc
given off at tho respective electrodes.
The applicant prepares his finely divided iron by a par¬
ticular process which results in a product which can be eloctrolyt-
ioully oxidized, and dooxidized. Wo do not find in either of tho
patents cited a sufficient anticipation of Claims 10, 11 and 12.
Claims 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, am' 22 claim tho battery
as a whole comprising the finoly divided iron or iron oxide as one
electrode, an alkaline electrolyte, and as tho othor oloctrode tho
more or loss oxidized nickel oxide.
In view of the statements as to the great improvements in
tho art which results from the use of this navi iron electrode with
the old electrolyte and old dooxydizing electrode, we regard those
claims as allowable.
Claims 27, 2 B, 29, 30 and 31 are anticipated for the rea¬
sons stated by the Jixaninor, ;
Claims 32 and 33, though of doubtful patentability, may
be allowed for the reason that they include one new element, to-wit
the iron - iron oxirJe eleotrode.
The decision of the Bxarcinor is affirmed as to claims 1,
2, 4, £>, 7, B, 37, 20, 39, 30 and 81 and reversed us to claims 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, lb, 19, 20, 21, 22, 32 and 33.
5b: cm i n or s- i n -C h i o f .
Case Ho. 1056 Abandoned
Piled Mar oil 1st, 1901.
IMPROVEMENTS IN REVERSIBLE GALVANIC BATTERIES.
Claims .
1. An active element for an alkaline reversible
galvanic battery, comprising an electrode and a hydrated
oxide of a specific magnetic metal other than iron carried
by said electrode, substantially as set forth.
2. An active element for an alkaline reversible
galvanic battery, comprising an electrode, a hydrated
oxide of a specific magnetic metal other than iron carried
by said electrode, and an inert conducting material inyi-
mately mixed with said oxide, substantially as set forth.
3. An active element for an alkaline reversible
galvanic battery, comprising an electrode, a hydrated
oxide of a specific magnetic metal other than iron carried
by said electrode, and flake graphite intimately mixedwith
said oxide, substantially as set forth.
4. An active element for an alkaline reversible
galvanic battery, comprising an electrode and an oxide of
nickel carried thereby having when charged electrolytically
more oxygen than Ni203, substantially as set forth.
5. An active element for an alkaline reversible
galvanic battery, comprising an electrode, an oxide of ni-
kel carried thereby having when charged electrolytically
more oxygen than Ni203, and an inert oonduoting material
intimately mixed with said oxide, substanially as set forth
6. An active element for an alkaline reversible
galvanic battery, comprising an electrode, an oxide of ni¬
ckel carried thereby having when charged electrolytically
more oxygen than Ni203, and flake graphite intimately mix¬
ed with said oxide, substantially as set forth.
An active element for annalkaline reversible ,
forth,
8. An active element for an alkaline reversible
galvanic battery, comprising an electrode, a hydrated ox¬
ide of nickel carried thereby, and an inert conducting
material intimately mixed with said hydrated oxide, sub¬
stantially as set forth.
9. An active element for an alkaline reversible
galvanic battery, comprising an electrode, a hydrated ox¬
ide of nickel carried thereby, and flake graphite intimate¬
ly mixed with said oxide^ substantially as set forth.
10. An active oxidizable element for an alkaline
reversible galvanic battery, comprising an electrode and
electrolytically active, finely divided iron carried there¬
by, substantially as set forth.
11. An element for an alkaline reversible galvanic
battery, comprising an electrode and finely divided ferrous
oxide carried thereby, substantially as set forth.
12. An active oxidizable element for an alkaline
reversible galvanic battery, comprising an electrode and an
oxide of iron carried thereby electrolytically reducible
to the metallic state, substantially as set forth.
13. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline e-
lectrolyte, an electrode carrying finely divided iron when
charged, and another electrode carrying an oxide of a
specific magnetic metal other than iron and capable of fur¬
nishing oxygen for the oxidation of the iron on discharge,
substantially as set forth.
14. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, an electrode carrying finely divided oxide of
iron when discharged, and another electrode carrying an
oxide of/specific magnetic .metal , other than iron capable
on charging
of storing oxygen, /substantially' as set forth.
15. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, an electrode carrying finely divided iron when
3 -
charged, another electrode carrying an oxide of a specific
magnetic metal other than iron and capable of furnishing
oxygen for 'the oxidation of the iron oh discharge, and an
inert conducting material' intimately mixed with said oxide,
substantially as set forth.
16. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, an electrode carrying finely divided iron
when, charged , another electrode car ring an oxide of a
specific magnetic metal other than iron and capable of fur¬
nishing oxygen for the . oxidation of the iron on discharge,
and flake graphite intimately mixed with said oxide, sub¬
stantially as set forth.
17. In a reversible galvanic battery,' an alkaline
electrolyte, an electrode"! - carrying finely divided iron
when charged, an inert conducting material intimately
mixed with said finely divided iron, another electrode car¬
rying an oxide of a specific -magnetic metal other than iroi.
capable of furnishing oxygen for the oxidation of the iron
on discharge, and an inert conducting material mixed with
said oxide, substantially as set forth.
18. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, an'electrode carrying finely divided iron
whe n charged, flake graphite intimately mixed with said'
f inely divided iron, another electrode carrying an< oxide
of a specific magnetic metal other tjian iron capable of
furnishing oxygen for the oxidation of the iron on dis¬
charge and flake- graphite mixed with said oxide, substan^i
tially as set forth.
19. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, and electrode carrying finely divided iron
when charged, and another electrode carrying oxide of nic¬
kel capable of furnishing oxygen for the oxidation of the
iron on discharge, substantially as set forth.
20. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, an electrode carrying finely divided oxide
of iron when discharged, and another electrode carrying an
oxide if nickel, substantially as set forth.
21. In a reversible galvanic battery, and alkaline
electrolyte, an. electrode carrying finely divide^ iron when
charged , and another electrode carrying oxide of nicked
having when charged electrolytically more oxygen than
Hi203, substantially as set forth.
22. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline
electrblyte , an electrode carrying finely divided iron
when charged, and another electrode carrying a hydrated
oxide of nickel, substantially as set forth.
23. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, and electrode carrying finely divided iron
when charged, another electrode carrying oxide of nickel
capable of furnishing oxygen for the oxidation of the iron
on discharge, and flake graphite intimately mixed with said
oxide, substantially as set forth.
24. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, an electrode carring finely divided oxide of
iron when discharged, another electrode carrying an oxide
of nickel, and flake graphite intimately mixed with said
oxide, substantially as set forth.
25. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, an electrode carrying finely divided:' icon when
charged, another electrode carrying oxide of nickel having
when charged electrolytically more oxygen than Ni203, and
flake graphite intimately mixed with said oxide, substan¬
tially as set forth.
26. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, an electrode carrying finely divided iron when
charged, another electrode carrying a hydrated oxide of
nickel, and flake graphite intimately mixed with said oxide
substantially as set forth.
27. An actiVe element for an alkaline reversible
galvanic battery, comprising a perforated receptacle hav¬
ing elastic walls and an active material therein engaged
by said walls with an elastic pressure, substantially as
set forth.
28. An active element for an alkaline reversible
galvanic battery, comprising a perforated receptacle having
elastic walls and an oxide of a specific magnetic metal
other than iron in said receptacle, said oxide being capable
of furnishing oxygen electrolytically upon discharge, sub¬
stantially as set forth.
29. An active element for an alkaline reversible
galvanic battery, comprising a perforated receptacle hav¬
ing elastic walls and an oxide of nickel carried thereby
and having when charged electrolytically more oxygen than
Hi203, substantially as set forth.
30. An active element for an Itlkaline reversible gal¬
vanic battery, comprising a perforated receptacle hav¬
ing elastic walls arid a hydrated oxide of nickel carried by
said receptacle and engaged by said walls with an elastic
pressure, substantially as set forth.
31. In a reversible galvanic battery, a stable elec¬
trolyte, and active material therein which in cliarging or
discharging is alternately increased or decreased in bulk,
a perforated receptacle holding the material and having
elastic walls which at all times engage the material with
an elastic pressure, and another electrode carrying a dif¬
ferent active material, substantially as set forth.
32. In a reversible galvanic battery, an alkaline
electrolyte, an electrode carrying finely divided iron when
charged, another electrode having elastic walls, and an
oxide of a specific magnetic metal other than iron carried
petition
DYER, EDMONDS & DYER.
Patents ant) patent Causes,
Co tbe Commissioner of patents :
your petitioner, '.THOMAS A. EDISON, u citizen of the United
States, residing at Llewellyn Park in the County of Essex and
State of New Jersey, whose post offioe address is Orange, Essex
County, New Jersey,
PRAYS THAT LETTERS PATENT MAY BE GRANTED TO HIM FOR THE BSPROVEKENT IN
ELECTRODES EOR GALVANIC BATTERIES
SET FORTH IN THE ANNEXED SPECIFICATION ; AND HE HEREBY APPOINTS DYER, EDMONDS
AND DYER (A FIRM COMPOSED OF RICHARD N. DYER, SAMUEL O. EDMONDS AND FRANK L.
DYER), OF NO. 31 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK CITY, HIS ATTORNEYS, WITH FULL POWER OF
SUBSTITUTION AND REVOCATION, TO PROSECUTE THIS APPLICATION, TO MAKE ALTERA¬
TIONS AND AMENDMENTS THEREIN, TO RECEIVE THE PATENT, AND TO TRANSACT ALL
BUSINESS IN THE PATENT OFFICE
BPBOIPIOATION.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Bo it known that I, THOMAS A. EDISON, a citizen of
the United States, residing at Llewellyn Bark in the County
of Essex and State of New Jersey, have invented a certain
new and useful IMPROVEMENT IN ELECTRODES EOR GALVANIC BAT-
/or?
TERIES (oaso No. 1057), of whioh the following is a de¬
scription:
My invention relates to improvements in electrodes
for galvanic batteries, and particularly reversible or so-
callad storage batteries; and the improvements are es¬
pecially designed for use with batteries wherein the active
material is subject to changes in bulk, either due to ab¬
sorption of the electrolyte or to other causes during Charg¬
ing or discharging.
In an application for Letters Patent filed
1901, Serial No. W ^3i> j have described an improved re¬
versible galvanic battery employing oxide of niokel or of
oobalt as the aotivo material, contained in perforated
highly-elastio metallio pockets undor pressure, whereby an
expansion or Contraction in bulk of the active material re¬
sults in a consequent bulging or retraction of the pooket
walls to always maintain the desired intimate contact be¬
tween the active material and suoh walls. ( I find that by
corrugating the walls of the pockets or receptacles, they
may be made sufficiently rigid to withstand the pressure
due to any tendency of the aotive material to expand, while
at the same time the thioknessof metal used in their con¬
struction may bo aotually reduced. By means of this im-
provanent I do away with the necessity of making the pockets
• 1
of highly-elaotio material, and also overcome the possibi¬
lity of poor oontaot between the walla and the active mate¬
rial. My ohjeot then la to provide an improved oonstrue-
tion of pocket or receptacle for the active material, where¬
in any tendency of the walla thereof to buckle outwardly
will be overcome, while at the same time the thickness of
jsuoh walla need not be increased.
In order that the invention may be better under¬
stood, attention ia directed to the accompanying drawing
forming a part of this specification, and in whloh figure 1
is a plan of a portion of a grid showing pooket 8 or re-
oeptaoles in place} figure 3 a seotion on the line 3—2 of
figure lj and figure 3 a seotion on the line 3—3 of fig¬
ure 3.
In all of the above views like parts are represented
by corresponding numerals.
The grid 1 is made of a suitable sheet metal not
affected by the eleotrolyte, as for example sheet nickel
or nickel-plated sheet steel or iron in the case of a bat¬
tery using ah alkaline solution. The grid is formed with
openings 2 therein, preferably rootangular in shape, and
fitted and secured in eaoh opening is a reoeptaale or pookot
3 having perforated. walls. Eaoh pocket or reoeptacle 3 is
made of two aeotions 4 and 8 fitted together. ^ After tho
aotive material 6 is introduced in the smallei^seotion 4,
■ Jjujs y. • j. * '
tho^ seotion B is fitted like a box cover over it, and the
pooket as a whole im introduced into one of the openings 2
and seoured permanently In position ’'by the applioat ion of
pressure near Its edges, whioh, are oriiqped or burred ever
around the edge of the opening, as shown. ^ Tho
novelty of the present ingirovement is the provision Of eof-
rua^tions or flutes in the pooket walls as Illustrated, and
1 -
r
whloh may be formed in any suitable way. The Be corruga¬
tions preferably extend crosswise of the pooketa or horison-
tally from aide to side as I show, but obviously they may
run longitudinally or end to end, or obliquely from one
side to the other. | I find by aotual praotioe that with
: pockets oorrugated or fluted as explained, the walls are so
stiff that there is no appreciable or at least objectionable
j bulging, even when the pockets oontain active material which
I tends to increase in bulk during charging, like oxide of
nickel; and that this advantageous result is scoured when
/ the metal of the pookots is even thinner than may be effeo-
i til rely used without the corrugations but with a highly*
elastic metal. . . . . . . . . .
Having now described my invention, what I, claim
as new and desire to secure by letters Patent is as fol¬
lows.*
1. An electrode for a galvamio battery, oompris-
ing a support, a pocket or receptacle carried thereby and
having oorrugated walls, and an aotlve material In Said
poOket or receptacle, substantially as set forth.
S. An electrode for a galvanic battery comprising
a support, a pooket or reooptaole carried thereby and hav¬
ing horizontally oorrugated walls, and an aotlve material
in said pocket or receptacle, substantially as set forth.
3. An electrode for a galvanlo battery comprising
a grid having an opening therein, a pooket or reoeptaole
seoured in said opening and having corrugated walls, and an
active material in said pocket or reooptaole, substantially
oa set forth.
4. An electrode for a galvanio battery comprising
a grid having an opening therein, a pocket or receptacle
8
. . . ' '
I secured in said opening and having horlaontally corrugated
walls, and an active material in said pocket or receptacle,
substantially as set forth.
8* An electrode for a galvanic battery comprising
a grid having a plurality of openings therein, a pookot or
receptacle secured in each opening and having oorrugated
walls, and an aotive material in said pockets or reoeptaolea
substantially as set forth!.
6. An electrode for a galvanio battery comprising
a support, a sectional pooket or receptacle carried thereby
and having oorrugated walls, and an aotive material in said
pooket or reoeptaole, substantially as set forth,
7. An electrode for a galvanio battery Comprising
a support, a pocket or receptacle having corrugated walls
and secured at its edges to said support, and an aotive ma¬
terial in. said pouket or reoeptaole, substantially as set
forth.
t
- -
©atb*
State ol
(Eount?
THOMAS A. BDISOH _ THE above-named
PETITIONER, BEING DULY SWORN, DEPOSES AND SAYS THAT HE IS A OitiSBlI
OF THE United States, and a resident of Llewellyn Park in the
County of Essex and Btato of Hew Jersey;
THAT HE VERILY BELIEVES HIMSELF TO BE THE ORIGINAL, FIRST AND SOLE INVENTOR
op THE IMPROVEMENT IN 3XECTR0K53 50R GALVANIC BATTERIES
3 CLAIMED IN THE ANNEXED SPECIFICATION; THAT HE DOES NOT
KNOW AND DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THE SAME WAS EVER KNOWN OR USED BEFORE
HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF; OR PATENTED OR DESCRIBED IN ANY
PRINTED PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY
BEFORE HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF, OR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR
TO THIS APPLICATION; OR IN PUBLIC USE OR ON SALE IN THE UNITED STATES FOR
MORE THAN TWO YEAHS PRIOR TO THIS APPLICATION, AND THAT NO APPLICATION
FOR FOREIGN PATENT HAS BEEN FILED I
ASSIGNS IN ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY.
A OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OR
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE I
nr.
E THIS ^^"Cay" of wo /
y&Ls/'tfe. _ _
NOTARY PUBLIC.
3-101.
I have to acknowledge the receipt of the petition, specification, oath, and ~
drawing of yonny, alleged Improvement in . .
_ _ _ .1 _
with Fifteen Dollars as the first fee payable thereon. Jj
The papers are duly filed, and your application for a patent will be taken I
up for examination in its order _ _ 2
United States Patent Office,
Is Thomas A. Edison,
3 1
1 % Care Dyer, Edmonds & Dye
| § 31 ITassau St . ,
t, %, ms
The serial number of the application referred to, line
15, page 1, should be specified.
The statement in line 11, paGe 2 that figure 1 is a plan
of a grid shov/inc two pockets, is incorrect, as only one pocket
is shown.
Claim 6 is indistinct in the words "sectional pocketi
the word "sectional" is not sufficiently definite to distinguish
applicant's structure from that disclosed by the references.
Claims 1, 2, 6 are each rejected upon:
U... 5. 509.270, ITov ■ 21, 1893, Usher, (Bat t . , Sec . ) :
Rooney,
The vessel in which the pocKe’ts of Usher are retained may be
termed a support.
Ex'r Div. 3,
oil thnt the printed copies enumerated below are exhausted. As the appro-
jprint all exhausted copies, only such bb aro indispensable will bo reproduced,
other you will await their reproduction, or whether their cost, .JO .
0 chi, ■ -
Q - ^ 9 -&2JI
\s
THOMAS A. EDISON )
)
ELECTRODES FOR GALVANIC BATTER IBS. )
) ROOM 3.49.
PILED MARCH 86th, 1901. )
)
SERIAL NO. 52,986. )
HON. COJfctlSSIONBR OP PATENTS.
S I R:
I hereby abandon the above entitled application
(without waiving any rights in or to the invention described
therein) in favor of an applibation (Edison No. 1069) execu¬
ted on even date herewith and having the s;ane title.
Respectfully,
Signed May 10, 1901.
In presence of:
Case No. 15-1057,
Abandoned.
Improvements in Elect rods s for Galvanic
Batteri es .
C la i m s.
1. An electrode for a galvanic battery, comprising
a support, a pocket or receptacle carried thereby and hav¬
ing corrugated vails, and an active material in said pocket
or receptacle, substantially as set forth.
2. An electrode for a galvanic battery comprising
a support, a pocket or rec.eptaele carried thereby and hav¬
ing horizontally corrugated walls, and an active material
in said pocket or recrtpta.de, substantially as set forth.
3. An electrode for a galvanic battery comprising
a grid having an opening therein, a pocket or receptacle
secured in said opening and having corrugated walls, and an
active material in said pocket or receptacle, substantially
as set forth.
4. An electrode for a galvanic battery comprising
a grid having an opening therein, a pocket or receptacle,
secured in said opening and having horizontally corrugated
walls, and an active naterial in said pocket or receptacle,
substantially as set forth.
5. An electrode for a galvanic battery comprising
a grid having a plurality of openings therein, a pocket or
receptacle secured in each opening and having corrugated
vfalls, and an active material in said pockets or receptacle 3
substantially as set forth.
6. An electrode for a galvanic battery comprising
a support, a sectional pocket or receptacle carried thereby
and having corrugated walls, and an active material in
said pocket or receptacle, substantially as set forth.
-1-
7. An electrode for a galvanic battery comprising
a support, a pocket or receptacle having corrugated walls
and secured at its edges to said support, and an active
material in said pocket or receptacle, substantially as
set forth.
'* ^ *tt^ lw,t^XEToL" Oyj ^Gg '*^
kef. /*- *p=* "“x)
V^rtc ,w
y w~. f— t ~*r~:~ tfcu£
■■Vyduara- u «.<*— *1 - *
oL*.—rr~
ot-« *> r~^_ ( a 2.
^XXT fc-C^-fr
^ Vf? <4
«r~***- 1) ^ . Jk -'je
K“t~s££±r
i. <ue=t=rrf 0. l^- !-«•
rl, 6,X-Jl .pUd-^ '>»*'' ’">'.
r -7J — 75 /io
.ciu^e ^
*0
\| . v 0 'Sto£ — -VC—
A >* .0 . • o ±- '*x&acr^
° . . (~T<^ E^^
tf .
A>''fcja
fi r^f7^
«^%^e t££g <fJz-
t 'L^vV.(l 03=^ "■ ,w' ^
iU ct cL& t* * *i cwddU'
-s
•V'-<-AA-^A,j CL Si- |U
VvX‘*WX
>&-(£/ ^~‘N
Uh<Mk.
ftdljbL*
Ls& ^j2.<a„©
AJL _ _
„ f : ^4Cjl^
Z^£j,£t-S »*-■-*■ <^
obfc, la xHw_ I /(^-^a^a
, CDt(6 <*~®
^ 00
6'
4, m^W<e* -
d(U, :L, +lH-*-etLLr+i <
'HvSt ^
1 ,^£3Z1^X'
ts-w^gg:^- -A
y
■ v
U, -3HM,
Qv'e&v- tai eZ^^Lt
r
O"
IVU (*-+
ffl. £&©*»-
.,€.<1 e> <$jy 1 ■£■■'& * ^ <5wA
k*_U L~y<J tfJU-tL--# JUj
^go &£& eU M-A^odJ ;
■tff^JLe. V i>4«mn/ ux TXIT* dZi.a-Q^'Zj 1C
* s7> ... '~isr™~u‘ o. [ )/
ofo-w $>V< t
I . Ou^.X^'CaJ^^
«*(% ^Z££ZZ
-jjp 0 (sj.. aaT**
,<3-oy
:,OVV-
LAW OFFICES
DYER. EDMONDS & DYER.
patents mis patent Causes,
Petition.
TEo the Commissioner of patents :
YOUR PETITIONER THOMAS ALVA EDISON, A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES,
RESIDING AT LLEWELLYN PARK, IN ORANGE, ESSEX COUNTY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND
WHOSE POST-OFFICE ADDRESS IS ORANGE, NEW JERSEY, PRAYS THAT LETTERS PATENT
may be granted to him for the IMPROVEMENT IN DEPOLARIZERS POH RE¬
VERSIBLE GALVANIC BATTERIES
SET FORTH IN THE ANNEXED SPECIFICATION J AND HE HEREBY APPOINTS DYER, EDMONDS
AND DYER (A FIRM COMPOSED OF RICHARD N. DYER, SAMUEL O. EDMONDS AND FRANK L.
DYER), OF 31 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK CITY, HIS ATTORNEYS, WITH FULL POWER OF
SUBSTITUTION AND REVOCATION, TO PROSECUTE THIS APPLICATION, TO MAKE ALTERA¬
TIONS AND AMENDMENTS THEREIN, TO RECEIVE THE PATENT, AND TO TRANSACT ALL
BUSINESS IN THE PATENT OFFICE CONNECTED THEREWITH : AND HE REQUESTS THAT ALL
COMMUNICATIONS RESPECTING THIS APPLICATION BE .'ADDRESSED TO HIS ATTORNEYS,
AT THE EDISON LABORATORY, ORANGE, NEW JER8EY.
I
I SPECIFICATION.
TO WHOM IT HAY CONCERN:
Be it known that I, THOMAS A. EDISON, a oitizen of
the United States, residing at Llewellyn Park, in the County
of Essex and State of New Jersey, have invented a certain
new and useful IMPROVEMENT IN DEPOLARIZERS FOR REVERSIBLE
GALVANIC BATTERIES (case No. 1058), of which the following
is a description:
In an application for patent filed Maroh 1, 1901,
Serial No. 49,483, I describe an improved reversible gal-
vanio battery utilizing niokel hydroxide as the aotive de¬
polarizing material. This nickel hydroxide was mixed with
flakelike or micaceous graphite and paoked in metallic re¬
ceptacles having perforated walls. When subjected to a
charging current , the niokel hydroxide is raised to a high¬
er state of oxidation so as to operate as a depolarizer, the
advantages and value of which were fully explained in said
application.
The green hydroxide of niokel made by the usual
methods of precipitating a soluble niokel salt by the solu¬
ble alkalies, such as potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxidi ■
is oo^loifdal in form. %t is very bulky, requires hours to
Bottle when thrown into a large quantity of water, is very
difficult to wash and make oheaply, dries to a hard glassy
mass, and when placed in the pookets of the electrodes swells
to such an extent that the pockets must be made very
and of comparatively thick metal to withstand the pressure.
If the hydrated peroxide is produced by preoipitating a
niokel salt by hypoahlorite of potassium or hypoohlorito of
sodium, it has the same objectionable colloidal properties,
1
whlla if the hydrated peroxide ia formed by dry chlorina¬
tion it is always imperfect, difficult to purify, and swells
©bjeotionably in the pockets of the electrodes.
My present invention relates to the production of
nickel hydroxide suitable for use as a depolarizer, its phy¬
sical Btate being such that when placed In the pockets of
the electrode it will not unduly expand when subjected to
I the Joint action of the electrolyte and the charging cur¬
rent to weaken or disrupt the metal forming the pockets or
to affect the proper eleotrloal contact with the metal of
the pockets during the charging and discharging operations,
and v/hich depolarizer is al3o of a character easily manufac¬
tured and purified, of groat sensitiveness to electrolytic
oxidation, and 'which dries to a powder, all of whioh are
properties enhancing its value for use in this art.
In carrying the invention into effect, I proceed as
follows: To a boiling solution of nitrate of nickel- is : add-
ed a suffiolent quantity of magnesium hydroxide to precipi¬
tate the whole of the nickel as niokel hydroxide (HiO)j tho
whole is thrown into water; it settles almost immediately;
by decanting the water and adding fresh water six or eight
times and decanting after each addition, the hydroxide is
obtained veiy free of impurities; afterwards the excess of
water is filtered off and the hydroxide is then dried. Cal¬
cium or strontium hydroxide can be used in place of magne¬
sium hydroxide, but the latter produces superior results.
The green niokel hydroxide thus produced can be used in the
pockets of the eleotrode without any further manipulation*
but the action of ,the alkaline solution causes it to swell
materially, and this imposes an objectionable pressure upon
the walls of the pockets. It is therefore desirable that
this tendency to swell should be reduced as far as possible;
I have found that if the green hydroxide is oxidized Btill
further to the hydrated peroxide, the swelling notion is so
reduced as to he included within the elastic limits of the
walls of the pockets of the electrode. To furthor oxidize
the green hydroxide I pass dry chlorine gas through a re¬
ceptacle filled with the dried hydroxide; tho notion of
the ohlorine on the hydrate oxidizes the latter and pro¬
duces hydroohlorio aoid, which combines with a portion of
the hydroxide and forms ohloride of nickel, whioh is washed
out by percolation and used again to give fresh hydrate;
finally, the hydrated peroxide is dried and is ready for
use. It is then mixed with flake graphite in the propor¬
tions of six parts of the peroxide to four parts of graphite
the mixture is then slightly moistened with water or a solu¬
tion of potassio hydroxide and spread out on a glass plate,
and by means of a glass or porcelain roller pressed into a
thin sheet; by means of a spatula, the sheet is detaohed
from the glass and broken up and rolled again; this opera¬
tion is repeated a number of times, until the finely divided
oxide oovers nearly the whole surface of the graphite parti¬
cles. The mass is then air-dried on a steam-heated plate.
The object of rolling the compound instead of grind¬
ing the same is to preserve the size of the graphite parti-
oles and not break them up into smaller sizes whioh would
be small enough to pass through the perforations in the
pockets, and also to obtain the thinnest possible layer of
oxide upon the surface of eaoh particle of graphite, so that
the ourrent is not compelled to pass from partiole to parti-
ole through a greater thiokness Of aotive material than is
absolutely necessary. The large proportion of graphite re¬
latively to the peroxide is used beoause the latter in no
stage of tho operation becomes a oonduotor, except possibly
3
I
I to a very slight extent, so that it is desirable that a thin
layer of tho oxide should ho distributed over oaoh graphite
partiole to render the aotiro material as sensltire as pos¬
sible to the action of the ourrent.
The mixture of the nickel hydroxide and graphite is
molded into blocks under pressure and inserted in perforated
metallic receptacles or pookets secured in any suitable way
to proper supporting plates or grids, whioh electrodes thus
formed are employed in an alkaline eleotrolyte with any
suitable active oxidlzable material, but preferably an iron
compound capable of being reduced to the metallic state when
subjected to the charging ourrent, as I desoribe in my said
application.
Having now described my invention, what I olaim
bb new and desire to seoure by letters Patent 1b as fol¬
lows :
1. A depolarizing material for reversible galvanic
batteries, consisting of the hydrated oxide of nickel in
non-oolloidal form, substantially as set forth.
2. A depolarizing material for reversible galvanic
Cltvif Cfrrct**- uCo^r ,
batteries, consisting of powdered hydrated oxide of nickel,
substantially as set forth.
3. Por use in the manufacture of positive elec¬
trodes for reversible galvanic batteries, a mixture of non-
oolloidal hydrated oxide of nickel, and a flakelike conduc¬
ting material, substantially as set forth.
iw-V.
4. Pop use in the manufacture of positive elec¬
trodes for reversible galvanic batteries, a mixture of non-
oolloidal hydrated oxide of niokel, and flake graphite, sub¬
stantially as set forth.
15. For use in the manufacture of electrodes for
reversible galvanio batteries, an active material in finely
divided powdered form applied in a thin layer to the parti-
oles of a flakelike conducting material, substantially as
set forth.
6. For use in the manufacture of electrodes for
reversible galvanic batteries, an active material in finely
divided powdered form applied in a thin layer to the parti¬
cles of flake graphite, substantially as set forth.
7. For use in the manufacture of positive elec¬
trodes for reversible galvanio batteries, dried hydrated
oxide of niokel in non-colloidal powdered form applied in a
thin layer to the particles of a flakelike conducting mate¬
rial, substantially as set forth.
6. For use in the manufacture of positive elec¬
trodes for reversible galvanio batterieB, dried hydrated
oxide of niokel in non-oolloldal powdered form applied in a
thin layer to the particles of flake graphite, substantially
as set forth.
9. 'For use in the manufacture of positive elec¬
trodes for reversible galvanio batteries, a oompressed mix¬
ture of non-colloidal hydrated oxide of niokel, and a flake¬
like oonduoting material, substantially as set forth.
10. For use in the manufacture of positive elec¬
trodes for raversiblevgalvanio batteries, a compressed mix¬
ture of non-oolloidal. hydrated oxide of niokel, and flake
graphite, substantially as Bet forth.
Department
A.M.H.
United States Patent Office,
Thomas A. Edison,
Washington, d. C„
Care Dyer, Edmonds & Dyer,
31 Nas sail St.,
New York, N. Y,
Please find below a communication from the EXAMINER in charge of your application.
No. 59,512, filed Hay 9, 1901 ,- "Depolarizer for Reversible
Galvanic Batteries" .
The formula for nickel hydroxide given in line 19, page
3, is incorrect; the formula given is that of a nickel oxide.
The word negat lve should be substituted for the word "pos¬
itive" in claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are objected to as being
indistinct in the words "non-colloidal" ; it has not been set
forth in the description just what is meant by applicant's hy¬
drated oxide of nickel being non-colloidal, nor is it so called
in the description.
It is suggested that the word dry be inserted before
"powder", line 2, claim 2.
Claims 1 and 2 are considered to be the same in scope
since. it-da&tated in the description that the hydroxide of nickel
made by applicant will be in a powdered form when dry.
Claims 1 and 2 are each rejected upon:
British 14,508, Nov. 3, 1884, Reed, (Batt . , Sec . ) ;
British 1862, Neb. 5, 1887, Abel, "
Ex>r Div.
3.
1 KUL1!j7'*' I.U °^Cri* nmendmont t1ie cxacfc word or -words to he strioken out or inserted in the application must be specified
separate from the papers previously filed, and written on but one side of the paper.
.TJIQHAS A. BRXSOV
MEOLARXZER 1’OR REVERSIBLE GALVANIC BAT SERIES
EIIED MAY 9, 1901
SERIAL HO. 59, 512
ROOM HO. 149.
HOST. COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS,
SIR:
We amend -the above-entitled application as fol¬
lows
Page 1, line SI, after "colloidal", insert - - or
gelatinous or slimy - .
Page 2, line 19, erase "(JTiO)", and substitute - -
- ,_i. e., Hi (OH)g - .
Page 4, line 1?., after the word "application" in¬
sert - By the expression "non-colloidal", as used by
me in my claims, as applied to the hydrated oxide of nickel,
I mean the oxide in granular form which dries to a powder,
as distinguished from the oxide in the colloidal, gelatinous
or slimy condition, as now produced, which dries to a hard
glassy mass, with the disadvantages before indicated _ — -
Claim 2, line 2, before "powdered", insert — -dry--.
Claims 5, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10, line 1 of each, erase
"positive" and substitute - -negative - .
Reconsideration of the case as now presented is re¬
spectfully requested. The expression "non-oolloidal", at
used in the claims, has been explained.
With reforonae to the Examiner's objection that the
first and second olalms both cover the name invention, we
direct hio attention to the fact that the second claim is
limited to the hydrate in dry powdered form, and hence is
more definite than the first claim, whiah would cover the
hydrate in its wet condition. It seems obvious that the
Reed and Abel patents, do not meet the terms of the first
two claims, since neither reference makes any statement
whatever to show the physical characteristics of the hy¬
drates employed.
Very respectfully,
THOMAS A. THIS OH',
Hew York, June 13, 1901.
1.1 °\0)'
Room No.149.-
United States Patent Office,
July B, 1901.
Thomas A. Rdison,
Care Dyer, Rdmonds & Dyer,
31 Has sail St.,
Hew York, H. Y.
it' the. EXAMINE H i.
$' J. (2 ti,-
p
Amendment filed July 2, 1901, has been entered.
The word "non-colloidal" is again objected to in the claims*,
since, as defined by the above amendment, non-colloidal means
in a granular form, it is suggested that granular be sub¬
stituted.
It is requested that a specimen of the oxide employed by
applicant be furnished.
Claims 1 and 2 are again rejected upon Reed and Abel, of
record. In the absence of : showing that Reed and Abel do
not disclose an oxide having the same^form ef applicant's, the
claims are still.-held to be met.
Ex'r Div. 3.
0 application must be specified
THOMAS A. EDISON s
depolarizer tor reversible galvanic batteries:
: ROOM NO. 149.
FILED FAT 9, 1901 :
SERIAL NO. 59,512 •
HON. COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS,
SIR:
Please amend as follows : -
Page 2, line 14, Before "dries" insert - , Being
non-colloldal in fora,—— - .
Claim 2, line 2, after "powdered" insert — granu¬
lar - .
Vo note that the Examiner still objects to the ex¬
pression "non-colloidal" in the claims, But we suBmit that
his objection should Be withdrawn, particularly in view of
the above amendment. In describing the nickel hydroxide
made By usual methods, applicant says (p. 1, line 21) that
it "is colloidal or gelatinous or slimy in form", and he
points out the several practical objections thereto. Re-_
forring to his present hydroxide, he says (page 2, line 14)
that it is "non-colloidal in fora" and "dries to a powder",
and the advantages of that characteristic are fully explained.
At the close of the specification, applicant explains just
what he moans By the expression "non-colloidal, aB used By
me in my claims”, namely, "the oxide in granular form which
dries to a powder, as distinguished from the oxide in tho
colloidal, gelatinous or slimy condition, as now produced,
which drieB to a hard glassy mass".
Ho one reading the claims could Be misled as -to
what they cover, and when claims can Be subjected to that
test ,it is submitted that they are u.urioBjeetiona'ble. We
note the Examiner's suggestion that the expression "granular
)
Iiorm" 'he used, hut we submit that that expression would not
he apt aa applied to the wet or undried oxide, which the
claims should ho broad enough to cover.
In repeating the first two claims on the references
of record, we note that the Examiner says:-
"In the absence of showing that Reed mid Abel
do not disclose an oxide having the same physical
form as applicant's, the claims are still held to
oe inetys
In this ruling, we submit tho Examiner has mistaken the rule
of law to be followed. A reference to be good should dis-
olose the olaimed invention olearly and unmiBtakeably; if
there As doubt on the point, it should be waived in an ap¬
plicant's favor. It is incumbent upon the applicant to
distinguish from a reference only when the Examiner has ap¬
parently successfully applied it.- In the present case,
both Abel and Reed are Bilent as to the character of oxide
used, so that it cannot be said that the claimed invention
is olearly disclosed. If the Examiner still is of the view
that these claims are met, wa ask him to point out whore
the references describe a hydrated oxide in non-oolloidal
or granular foraj or even indioate that such an oxide is
desoribed.
In accordance with the Examiner's request, wa will
furnish a specimen of applicant’s oxide.
Very respectfully,
SHOHAS A. KDISOH,
His Attorneys.
Orange, H.J., July 16, 1901.
| |
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
United States Patent Office,
Thomas A. Edison,
c/o Dyer, Edmonds & Dyer,
31 Nassau St . ,
New York City.
Please find below a communication from the EXAMINER in charge of your application.
Ser. No. 59,512, Ailed May 9, 1901. "Depolarizer for Reversible
Galvanic Batteries".
The amendment and argument filed July 17, 1901 has been
entered and considered.
The specimen refered to in the above amendment has not
yet been received; further action upon the merits of the claims is
suspended until such specimen is received.
61/TT& —
Examiner Div.3,
Case Ho. E-1058, Abandoned,
Piled May 9,1901.
Improvements in Depolarizers for Reversible Galvanic
Batteries.
Claims.
1. A depolarizing material for reversible galvanic
batteries, consisting of the hydrated oxide of nickel in
non-colloidal form, substantially as set forth.
2. A depolarizing material for reversible galvanic
batteries, consisting of powdered hydrated oxide of nickel,
substantially as set forth.
3. For use in the manufacture of positive electrodes
for reversible galvanic batteries, a mixture of non-colloi-
cal hydrated oxide of nickel, and a flakelike conducting
'material, substantially as set forth.
4. For use in the manuf ac “,ure of positive electrodes
for reversible galvanic batteries, a mixture Sf non-colloi¬
dal hydrated oxide of nickel , and flake graphite , substan¬
tially as set forth.
5. For use in the nanufscture of electrodes for
reversible galvanic batteries, an active material in finely
divided powdered form applied in a thin layer to the parti¬
cles of a flakelike conducting naterial, substantially as
set forth.
6. For use in the manufacture of electrodes for re¬
versible galvanic batteries, an active material in’ finely
divided powdered form applied in a thin layer to the parti¬
cles of flake graphite, substantially as set forth.
7. For use in the manufac ture of positive electrodes
for reversible galvanic batteries, dried hydrated oxide of
ckel in non-colloidal powdered form applied in a thin
yor to the particles of a flakelik-e conducting material
bstantiaL ly as set forth.
8. For use in the manufacture of positive electrode
r reversible galvanic batteries, dried hydrated oxide
niclcel in non-colloidal powdered form applied in a thi
yer to the particles of j'fl'dc e.lgraphite , substantially a
t forth.
9. For use in the manufacture of positive electrode
r reversible galvanic batteries, a compressed mixture o
i-colloidal hydrated oxide of nickel, and a flakelike
nduoting material, substantially as set forth.
10 For use in the manufacture of positive electrode
• W-AW/sr.
'r/HJMnm,/.*.
it.&yrn
Thomas A. Edison,
Orange,
few.
C^/v January 10, 1902.
Dear Sir,-
Your application (E. Ho. 1063) for Reversible Gal¬
vanic Batteries employing the combination of cadmium and
oxide of nickel, was allowed August 21st 1901 and the final
fee requires to be paid before February 21st next. On tak¬
ing up the case to see if there was any reason why the fee
should not be paid, we note that the prooess described in
the specification for making the niokel is the so-called
non-colloidal process of precipitating niokel hydrate by
means of magnesium hydroxide. We understand that there was
some defect in this process and that it is not now used by
you. Of course if the prooess described makes an operative
nickel hydroxide, whether non-oolloidal or not, there would
be a sufficient basis for the olaims; but if the process is
inoperative, we think the patent ought not to issue in its
present form. Please advise ub whether the process refer¬
red to is sufficiently operative to be practical.
-ffyr'T
"a-U-T^
LAW OFFICES
OYER, EDMONDS & DYER.
patents ana patent Causes.
Petition.
fto the (Commissioner of TPatents :
your petitioner , 2K0KAR A. 35DXSOH, a citizen of the United
StateB, residing and having his post office address at- Llewellyn
Park, Orange, Essex County, Hew Jersey,
PRAYS THAT LETTERS PATENT MAY BE GRANTED TO HIM FOR THE XiiPROVRD PRO¬
CESS OF KAKIHG KraCTROLYTI CAILY-ACTIVE FIUShY IDIVIIM) IR01T
SET FORTH IN THE ANNEXED SPECIFICATION i AND HE HEREBY APPOINTS OYER, EDMONDS
AND DYER, REGISTRATION NO. 2686 (A FIRM COMPOSED OF RICHARD N. DYER, SAMUEL
O. EDMONDS AND FRANK L. DYER), OF NO. 31 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK CITY, HIS
ATTORNEYS, WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION AND REVOCATION, TO PROSECUTE
THIS APPLICATION, TO MAKE ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THEREIN, TO RECEIVE
THE PATENT, AND TO TRANSACT ALL BUSINESS IN THE PATENT OFFICE CONNECTED
THEREWITH.
Ispeoipioation.
TO WXM IT MAY CONCERN:
Be it known that I, THOMAS A. EDISON, a citizen of
the United States, residing at Llewellyn Park, Orange, in
the County of Essex and State of New Jersey, have invented
a oertain new and useful IMPROVED PROCESS OP MAKING EKECTRO-
LYTICALLY- ACTIVE PINELY DIVIDED IRON (case No. 1069), of
whioh the following is a description:
My invention relates to an improved prooess or methoi
of making eleotrolytically-aotive finely divided iron suita¬
ble for use with my improved storage battery employing niok-
el hydrate as the depolarizer, but capable of use in connec¬
tion with any reversible galvanic cell having an alkaline
eleotrolyte and wherein on discharge an oxidation of one of
the active materials is effeoted.
My objeot is to provide a prooess by whioh finely
divided iron, eleotrolytically active to a practical and
useful extent, can be obtained at low cost, in commercial
quantity, and in suoh form that it may be stored and handled
without objectionable deterioration of its eleotrolytically-
aotive properties.
In effecting this object, I obtain an eleotrolyti-
cally-active iron oxide by roducing a suitable compound of
iron, preferably ferric oxide (Pe203) , by means of hydrogen
gas in the presence of heat maintained at suoh a temperature
as to make the reduced oxide eleotrolytioally aotive in al¬
kaline solutions, and I subject the latter oxide to further
treatment to make it non-pyrophorio, so that it may be stor¬
ed and handled without objectionable deterioration.
i
I A preferable way to oarry out my improved method is
the following : Oxalate of iron la first ignited in the
air, so as to burn to ferric oxide, or the latter oxide is
obtained by other approved methods. The ferric oxide is
then charged in a chamber or retort closely sealed againBt
atmospheric air, and hydrogen is introduced within the cham¬
ber or retort to displace the air therein, and the passage
of hydrogen is maintained during the heating and oooling of
the charge. The chamber or retort is now subjected to a
gradually increasing heat until a final temperature of about
degrees Fahrenheit is readied, for about twenty
hours, after which the charge is allowed to oool, while
Btill BUbjeoted to the reducing gas, with the exclusion of
atmospherio air or other oxidising influence. If after
I cooling, air were admitted to the ohamber or retort, there
would be danger of the oxide being spontaneously ignited
and reconverted to the ferrio state. I therefore prefer
to flood the chamber or retort with water after the cooling
[has been ef footed, so as to mix thoroughly with the reduced
oxide, forming a pasty mass whioh is non-pyrophorio, and
whioh in that condition oan he stored indefinitely and hand¬
led without deterioration. The effeot of the reducing hy¬
drogen gas and heat on the ferrio oxide in the method, is
to reduce such oxide in part at least to a lower condition
of oxidation, making it eleotrolytioally active in alkalino
solutions.
While a definite ohemioai analysis of the material
as finally secured has not been made, owing to its com¬
plexity and apparent unstability in the presence of ohemi¬
oai testa, it seems quite probable that the material is a
[lixture of oxides, namely ferrio oxide (FegOg), ferrous
xide (FeO), and a lower oxide (FeOg), the existence of
_ 2 _ _
I which has been suspected by ohemists, though bo far as I
know, it has never been praotioally produced, at least as
active material for a storage battery. The active mate¬
rial obtained by my process is capable of being electrolyti-
eally reduced in an alkaline solution durine the charging
operation, and of being electrolytioally oxidised when op¬
posed by a suitable depolarizer, and being insoluble in such
solutions, it is especially fitted for use in batteries of
the type suggested by me wherein permanence is obtained by
employing insoluble active materials carried by nickel or
niokelplated supports. The degree of temperature and time
of reduction necessary to properly carry out the process,
depend upon the quality or condition of the ferric oxide.
A lower reducing temperature can be employed, and the pro¬
cess oan be carried out in less time, when the ferrio oxide
is in extremely finely divided oondition, than would other¬
wise be possible.
I Having now described my invention, what I claim is:
1. The process of making electro lytically-aotivo
finely divided iron, which oonsiBts in reduoing an iron com¬
pound by hydrogen in the presence of heat until an eleotro-
lytioally-active oxide is obtained, substantially as set
forth.
3. The prooess of making eleotrolytloally-aotive
finely divided iron, whioh consists in reduoing an iron com¬
pound by hydrogen in the presence of heat until an eleotro-
lytically-active oxide is obtained, and in oooling the oxide
v/hile still subjected to hydrogen, with the exclusion of
oxidizing influences, substantially as set forth.
3. The process of making eleotrolytically-aotive
finely divided iron, whioh consists in reduoing an iron oon-
3
I pound by hydrogen in the presenoe of heat until an aleotro-
lytioally-active oxide is obtained, and in finally floodinc
the oxide so obtained with water, with the exclusion of oxi¬
dizing influences, substantially as set forth.
4. The process of making eleotrolytioally-aotire
finely divided iron, whioh aonsiBts in reduoing an iron com¬
pound by hydrogen in the presenoe of heat until an eleotro-
lytioally-active oxide is obtained, in oooling the oxide
while still subjected to hydrogen, with the exclusion of
oxidizing influences, and in flooding the oxide with water,
substantially as set forth.
5. The process of making electrolytioally-aotivo
finely divided iron, which consists in reduoing ferric o±ido
by hydrogen in the presence of heat until an eleotrolytical-
ly-aotive oxide is obtained, substantially as set forth.
6. The prooesa of making eleotrolytically-aotivo
finely divided iron, which consists in reduoing ferric oxide
by hydrogen in the presenoe of heat until an eleotrolytioal-
ly-aotive oxide is obtained, and in cooling the oxide so ob-
ttained while still subjected to hydrogen, with the exclusion
f oxidizing influences, substantially as set forth.
7. The prooess of making eleotrolytioally-aotivo
inely divided iron, whioh consists in reduoing ferrio oxide
by hydrogen in the presenoe of heat until an eleotrolytical-
ly-active oxide is obtained, and in finally flooding the
oxide so obtained with water, with the exclusion of oxidi¬
sing influences, substantially as set forth.
8. The process of making elsctrolytioally-aotivo
finely divided iron, whioh consists in reducing ferrio oxide
>y hydrogen in the presenoe of heat until an electrolytioal-
Ly-aotive oxide is obtained, in oooling the oxide while
still subjected to hydrogen, with the exclusion of oxidizing
SiSrS's^rthf10"41”6 *h8 wlth «*«■<
4
L
SPECIFICATION SIGNED AND WITNESSED *1
Oath.
THQKA £5 A. EDISON n
of the Uni tod States, and a resident of Llewellyn Part, Orance,
in the County of Us a ox and State of New Jersey}
IMPROVED PROCESS OP MAKING KTJSCTROLYTICALLY-AOTIVE PINEEIT
RE THAN TWO YEAR8 PRIOR TO THIS APPLICATION, AND THAT NO APPLICATION
t FOREIGN PATENT HAS BEEN FILED BY HIM OR HI.S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OR
Case No. 13-1069,
Not filed.
Improved process of Making Nlectrolytically Active
Finely Divided Iron.
C 1 i
i m
1. The process of making electrolytically-active finely
divided iron, which consists in reducing an iron compound
by hydrogen in the presence of heat until an electrolyti-
c ally- active oxide is pbtained , substantially as set forth]
2. The process of making electrolytically-active
finely divided iron, which consists in reducing an iron
compound by hydrogen in the presence of heat rmtil an
and in cooling the oxide while still subjected to hyjdrcgen
electrolytically-active oxide is obtained, /with the ex-
elusion of oxidizing influences, substantially as set
forth.
3. The process of rnakiig electrolytically-active
finely divided iron, which sonsssts in reducing an iron
compound by hydrogen in the presence of heat until an
electrolytically-active oxide is obtained, and in finally
flooding the oxide so obtained with water, with the ex¬
clusion of oxidizing influences, substantially as set
forth.
4. The process of making eleotrolytically-ac.tive
finely divided iron, which consists in reducing an iron
compound by hydrogen in the presence of heat until mn
electrolytically-active oxide is obtained, in cooling the
oxide while still subjected to hydrogen, with the exclusion]
of oxidizing influences, and in flooding the oxide with
water, substantially as set forth.
5. The process of making electrolytically-active
finely divided iron, which consists in reducing ferric
oxide Toy hydrogen in the? presence of heat until an
eleptrolytically-active oxide is obtained, subsia ntiallj
as 3et forth.
6. The process of making electrolytically-active
finely-divided iron, which consists in reducing ferric
oxide by hydrogen in the presence of heat until an elec-
trolytibally-aotive oxide is obtained, and in cooling
the oxide so obtained while still subjected to hydrogen,
with the exclusion of oxidizing influences, substantia'
as set forth.
7. The process of making electrolytically-active
finely divided iron, which consists in reducing ferric
oxide by hydrogen in the presence of heat until an
alactrielytically-active oxide is obtained, and in final
flooding the oxide so obtained with water, with the ex¬
clusion of oxidizing influences, substantially as set
forth.
3. The process of making electrolytically-active
finely divided iron, which consists in reducing ferric
oxide by hydrogen in the presence of heat until an elec-
trolytically-actlve oxide is obtained, in cooling the
oxide while still subjected .to hydrogen, v/ith the exclu¬
sion of oxidizing influences, and in flooding the oxide
with water, substantially as set forth.
Serial
, ic t .
Filed — r(D yf ?sS J? .
Examiner's Room No ....?■»£ <s'/ .
' ' ' Liberal . 6'(r . Page . i
3 . 18./....:;
4 ... 19.J ...:l
2i.(.
FRANK L. DYER,
Counsel,.
ORANGE, NEW JERSEY
7
5
Petition.
5o the Commissioner of IPatents:
your petitioner, THOHAS A. EDISOS, a oitlaen of the United
States, residing arts having hia post office address at Llewellyn
Parle, Orange, Essex County, Uew Jersey,
PRAYS THAT LETTERS PATENT MAY BE GRANTED TO HIM FOR THE IMPR0VEKSTT3
IN NT CKELPIiATHD ARTICLES
LAW OFFICES
Q DYER. EDMONDS & DYER.
patents ana patent Causes,
I r
L ©
fe '
SET FORTH IN THE ANNEXED SPECIFICATION; AND HE HEREBY APPOINTS DYER, EDMONDS
AND DYER, REGISTRATION NO. 2588 (A FIRM COMPOSED OF RICHARD N. DYER, SAMUEL
O, EDMONDS AND FRANK L. DYER), OF NO. 31 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK CITY, HIS
ATTORNEYS, WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION AND REVOCATION, TO PROSECUTE
THIS APPLICATION, TO MAKE ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THEREIN, TO RECEIVE
THE PATENT, AND TO TRANSACT ALL BUSINESS IN THE PATENT OFFICE CONNECTED
THEREWITH.
SPEQIPIOATION.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN :
Bo it known that I, THOMAS A. EDISON, a citizen of
the United States, residing at Llewellyn Park, Orange, in
the County of Essex and State of New Jersey, have invented
certain new and useful IMPROVEMENTS IN NICKELPLATEED ARTICLES
(case No. 1070)) of whioh the following is a description.
My invention relates to a new manufacture, namely
a steel or iron article having a welded niokel coating
thereon, the joint between the metals being free of oxide
of either metal. The invention is applicable to artioleo
in their final shape, suoh as oans, dishes etc., as well as
to forms out of which articles are to be subsequently pro¬
duced, such as sheets, plates and billets.
In producing my improved niokelplated artioles, I
prefer to oarry out the process^which I claim in (my applica¬
tion for) Letters Patentffiled February 14w Serial* "
No. 94,040^) of whioh the present case is a division. That
process is carried out as follows:
Iron or steel sheets, or artioles made from iron or
steel whether in sheet form or oast or wrought, are first
electroplated with a thin ooating of niokel in an ordinary
electrolytic bath. The sheets or articles are then prefer¬
ably piled or nested together so as to oooupy as minii a
space as possible, and are placed in a oast iron chamber or
day retort whioh is olosely sealed. A non-oxidizing at¬
mosphere is then created in the chamber or retort, prefera¬
bly by passing hydrogen gas through the same, to displace
the air therein. The sheets or artioles are now subjected
1
I to a temperature sufficient to weld the film of niokel to
the iron or steel baoklng while the non-oxidizing gas is
passing, after whioh the chamber or retort and its contents
are oooled down below the oxidizing point while the artiolos
or sheets are still surrounded by the gas, whereupon the
latter may be removed and a freBh charge introduced into
the ohamber. I find i* practioe that the sheets or arti¬
cles should be heated to a bright yellow, at which point
the niokel welds to the iron or steel so that it becomes
integral with it, and at the same time the surface of the
niokel becomes very bright. The weld, in fact, between
the nickel and the iron or steel is so perfect that sheets
plated in this way can be formed into various articles by
the drawing or stamping process without cracking or flaking
the film, which is not the oase when the film has not been
subjected to the welding prooess. In fact, I find that no
matter how carefully sheets of iron or steel may be electro¬
plated with nickel, any attempt to draw or stamp artioles
therefrom results in the cracking or flaking of the niokel
coating owing to the condition of tension of the latter,
whioh condition is relieved by the welding prooess describ¬
ed. The welding process serves also to anneal the sheets
for the first operation of drawing.
So perfect is the result secured by my prooess that
cans and dishes made thereby may be substituted , in many
cases for similar artioles made of tinned iron plates by
known processes. Hiokel artioles made by my process can
be produoed more oheaply than those made from tinned iron,
since the thiokness of the nickel film is very much less
than the thiokness of the tin coating on the latter arti¬
oles.
2
'—Ml.
Department of the Interior,
SERIES OF 1900.
,/M, /O f
s^ l 902 3
Kington, D. C., I
3 I have to acknowledge the receipt of the petition t specification , oath , and §
2 drawing of your alleged Improvement in ltd CsflLtsC. - j>C_ |
j 62^Xc . . £
3 with Fifteen Dollars as the first fee payable thereon. Jj
? The papers are duly filed, and your application for a patent will he taken I
> S
* ap for examination in its order _ _ _ g
You loill he duly advised of the examination.
Very respectfully,
&.J.
iUst d-4 f J
I
Commissioner of Patents. |
'J?/' 7/? t
V
II application fora patent, tlie inventor is by law required to famish his petition, specification,
“ admito of drawings) and to pay tho required fee.
nor con any official action be bad thereon, until all its parts, os hero specified, are
I rowings (where tho iu
plication is considered i
w required to famish his petition, i
0
^ Paper IT • .1. .
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, B.J5.J4,
United States Patent Office,
Washington, d. c
Thomas A. Btli Soft,
Co Dyer, Bdmonds A Dyer,
31 Nassau Street.,
New York City.
Please, find below a communication, from the EXAMINER in
for “Nickel-plated Articles," filed April 9, 1902, Serial No. 102,109.
charge of
jaasaft^
R J. ,
The claims seek to distinguish from an ordinary nickel-plated
article by the introduction of a step of the method, viz, the welding,
which is objectionable, and are unpatentable thereover for i'Mi reason.
The novelty, if any, lies in the method.
The article could not be distinguish by inspection from nickel-
plated articles made by another process and when the method is intro¬
duced into the claims in an attempt to distinguish the article' from
one made by another process, the claim is for the same invention a‘s
the method claims and isAthe wrong form. The following references are
cited as tending to show that "weided" coatings are old: -
British patent to Clark, 3122 of 1882;
U.s. patent to Pleltmann, 242.194^Jfay 3lVi681: (both lh’
class 206, Compound Ingots for Plate).
The claims are rejeoted. '
Case No..A£..Pap$ ho,./ .
C
LICENSE.
WHEREAS, I, THOMAS A. EDISOH, of Llewellyn Park, Es¬
sex County, New Jersey, have invented an IMPROVEMENT IK
NICKED PLATED ARTICLES, for whioh an application for Lettern
Patent of the United States was filed May 12, 1902, Serial
Ho. 102,109; and
WHEREAS, EDISON STORAGE BATTERY COMPANY, a corpora¬
tion organised under the laws of the State of Hew Jersey anti
having its principal place of business at Orange, Essex
County, said State, is desirous of securing a license under
the patent whioh may issue upon the aforesaid application
for use in connection with the manufacture of storage bat¬
teries and for no other purpose;
HOW, THEREFORE, To all whom it may concern, be it
known that for and in consideration of the sum of One Dol¬
lar to me in hand paid, rooeipt of whioh is hereby acknow¬
ledged, and of other good and valuable consideration, I, th^
said Thomas A. Edison, do hereby license and empower the
said Edison Storage Battery Company and its successors in
business to use the said invention as fully as the same is
set forth in the application referred to or the patent whioljt
may issue upon said application, within the territory of
the United States, and in connection with the manufacture
of storage batteries and for no other purpose.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
affixed my seal this A/ day of November^ 1902,
Signed, Bealed and delivered :
in the presence of, — •
State of Hew Jersey,!
:bs:
County of Essex, :
On this / ^'day of November, 1902, before me,
I
THOMAS A. EDISON
N I OKELPLATED ARTICLES
PILED APRIL 9, 1902
SERIAL NO. 102,109
ROOM NO. 251
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS,
SIR : -
In view of the Examiner' b oritioism
of the olaima, we amend by erasing the claims and substi¬
tuting the following:
— *" — h- — l.c _As a./neW\manuf aoture , steely or iron articles
having a nickel'''f ilm intimately associated with the Burfa^oo
thereoXand free of any oondition of tension, ^suTpiatant tally
as set fort^/
p* y{. As a new manufacture, steel or iron articles
• having a niokel film intimately associated with the surfaoe
thereof and free of any condition of tension, the joint be¬
tween the metals being free of oxide of either metal, sub¬
stantially aB Bet forth. -
Applicant has now limited his claims in such a way
as to overoome the objection urged by the Examiner. The
new niokelplated articles are distinguished in a physical
sense from ordinary niokelplated articles in the reBpeot
that the nickel coating is free of any condition of tension,
and in a ohemioal sense from the fact that in the joint be¬
tween the metals there is no oxide of either metal.
So far as the references to Clark and to Pleitmann
are concerned, we oall the Examiner's attention to the faot
that neither patent shows a niokelplated artiole, but in
each case a sheet of nickel is welded to a sheet of some
other metal. Applicant distinguishes from these oon-
Case No... A£. Paper Nc
struotions toy limiting his olaimB to artioles having nickel
films.
-,:;v We hope the oaBe as now presented may toe allowed.
Very respootfully,
THOMAS A. EDISON,
By _
Attorneys.
New York, January 28, 1903.
Case No..,idz...Paper No,...sk"
S ^ Room No. —
Woshington, D. C."
United States Patent Office,
Thomas A, Edison,
Care, Dyer, Edmonds ft Dyer,
31 Nassau Street, | ^EBllJ9 03 ]
New York City. J
Please find, below a communication from the" EXAMINER in charge oPySnF^^aHo.
for "Nickel-Plated Articles," filed Apr. 9, 1902, Serial No.
The claims presented by amendment filed Jan. 30, 1903, are
anticipated by and rejected on the patent to Adams, 154,435, Aug.
25, 1874.
Case No, /’...Paper No,.\,£„
UNITED STATES PATENT OPPICE.
Thomas A, Edison,
Nickel plated Articles,
Piled April 9,1902,
Serial No. 102, 109.
Room No. 251.
Hon. Commissioner of Patents,
Sir:-
1 amend by erasing Claim 1 and the
numeral of the second. Reconsideration is requested. With
applicant's article the joint between the niokel and iron
or steel is absolutely free of oxid of either metal, and
this result becomes possible only when the welding is
effected in a non-oxidizing atmosphere. With the Adams
patent . the welding would inevitably be accompanied by oxida¬
tion, and in faot the patent says that a low red heat is
used,,to the best advantage, the niokel oxidizing too rapid¬
ly at a higher temperature". This certainly would indi¬
cate that the patentee knew that some oxidation takes plaoe
even at a low red heat, which is of oourse a faot. Although
the difference between the two articles may be refined, it
is important and useful, and it is hoped therefore that the
Claim may be allowed.
Very respectfully,
Thos. A. Edison,
By
Orange, N.J.
December 3,1903.
Case Paper No,.
His Attorney,
2—2(10.
Room No— 329..
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.
United States Patent Office,
Washington, o. c., Deo. 31 ,
Thomas A. Edison,
Care, Prank Li Dyer,
Edison Labratory,
Orange, N.J.
Please find below a communication from the EXAMINER ii
for "Nickel -Plated Articles, filed April 9, 1902, Serial No. 108,109.
_ _ , _ _ Commissioner of Patents.
Responding to amendment filed Deo.- 4, 1903:
In accordance with the rulings of the'pOmmissiorier , “Case
should be eliminated
No. 1070, “^from the first paragraph, page 1.
Since the application referred to on page 1 has resulted in
a patent the number and date of the patent should be substituted for
the number and date of the application.
The article defined in the claim can differ from those aka
disclosed in the references of record only in degree and not in kind.
Every one skilled in the art of welding is aware that it is desirable
to have the surfaces to come in contact iggfc the welding operation
free of oxide, and attempts in welding are always made to produce
this result. There is no invention in the conception of an article
consisting of two plates welded together free of oxide in the joint.
If any invention exists in the disclosure of this application,, it is
held to be in the method of procedure by which the article may be
produced and not in the article. The claim is therefore a second ],
time rejected. ' .-,-7-;-.-
7 JAN \0
, \ I8O1
'%:r;
Folio No. M
Serial No. //C:
ul^L . O: . di
Examiner’s Room No
1 . /?<\
4—fc <*(■<<<- — t*y. jJ&C ;
rjs 1 6... . . v.' . .
, /;, > J 7 .
\ . . &***’.. .
^ ZJh c> J 9 . . V^f T&rrTd.W?! . . . . .
- 7 StTlfll ^d/'W, d(v~'y. //?<X276Kt *i**+~~^ ~ *~-3 -tt— <=--^*-3
9 J5 1," <■&»,„ 24,.. fax*. . . ,C. , . . .^. .: .^.: . .
ft,' .10 . few <^..:.£v*
' J I ,d£*. /?. ’u'(<rh ffi't t*r«'<^26...J^..^
§' 12
....?f:..rflj-w,...;
,:i^,^:.;^,^j^.f.^v28....
. . . . . 29....
FRANK L. DYER, ; r ,
Counsel,
A ' ORANGE, NEW JERSEY.
LAW OFFICES
DYER. EDMONDS & DYER.
patents ano patent Causes.
Petition.
Co the Commissioner of Fatents :
your petitioner 1’HOMAS A. EDISON, a citizen of the
United States* residing at Llewellyn Park, Orange, in the County
of Essex and State of New Jersey, whose post office address As
Orange, Re?/ Jersey,
PRAYS THAT LETTERS PATENT MAY BE GRANTED TO HIM FOR THE IMPR0V3MMT
IN PROCESSES OP MAKING SOUND RECORDS
SET FORTH IN THE ANNEXED SPECIFICATION ; AND HE HEREBY APPOINTS DYER, EDMONDS
AND DYER, REGISTRATION NO. 2S8S (A FIRM COMPOSED OF RICHARD N. DYER, SAMUEL
O. EDMONDS AND FRANK L. DYER), OF NO. 31 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK CITY, HIS
ATTORNEYS, WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION AND REVOCATION, TO PROSECUTE
THIS APPLICATION, TO MAKE ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THEREIN, TO RECEIVE
THE PATENT, AND TO TRANSACT ALL BUSINESS IN THE PATENT OFFICE CONNECTED
THEREWITH.
SPEiCimCAl'IOH.
TO ALL WHOM IT ?*!AY CONCERN:
Be it known that I, THOMAS A. EDISON, a oitizen of
the United States, residing at Llewellyn Park, Orange, Essex
County, State of Hew .Tersey, have invented a certain new
and useful IMPHOVEMENT IN PROCESSES OP MAKING SOUND RECORDS
(Case No. 1072), of which the following is a description:
My invention relates to processes for making sound
records of the type in whioh the record constitutes a Binu-
oub groove of substantially uniform depth and width, as dis¬
tinguished from a phonographic record wherein these dimen¬
sions are not uniform. Sound records of the kind to whioh
my present invention relates are relatively simple in char¬
acter, and the matter of duplicating them does not present
the difficulties of duplicating phonographic records.
Prior to my invention, in the making of sound rec¬
ords on a disk blank, for example, in the form of a sinuous
groove of substantially uniform depth and width, a suit¬
able plate or foundation was covered with a thin layer or
film of wax like material, which was engaged by a needle¬
like recording stylus connected to the diaphragm, the
arrangement being such that in the absence of vibrationB
the stylus removed the film of waxlike material to its full
depth to disclose the foundation, and in the form of a
spiral groove of uniform width. By vibrating the dia¬
phragm, the said groove was oaused to partake of sinuos¬
ities and undulations corresponding graphically to the
sound waves. By suitable etching, electroplating, pho¬
tographic or allied processes, a matrix was secured from
the master so formed, and used for the production of dup}.i-
-1-
catss by various methods.
The prooesseB used prior to my invention for the
j making of these records were objectionable for many reasons,
| and especially because the records produced are not accu¬
rately representative of the sound vibrations, first, be¬
cause the recording stylus, in order that it may certainly
out through the depth of the waxlike material, must be en¬
gaged with considerable friction against the foundation on
which the wax is carried, thereby offering unnecessary re¬
sistance to the vibration of the stylus, and second, because
the stylus, being unprovided with outting edges, in its vibra
tions merely displaced or compressed the waxlike material
in the formation of the groove, instead of cleanly cutting-
it.
The object of my invention is to provide improve-
lents in the art of making records of this kind and by whioh
Ithe resulting records will he more perfect and capable of
nore accurate reproduction than records of the kind as
heretofore made. As a result of the improvements, I secure
i new commercial article of manufacture, to wit, an original
-ecord surfaoe containing a .cleanly-out sinuous spiral reo-
>rd groove, presenting preferably in cross-section the arc of
?. circle, and whioh is aoourately representative of the
original sounds, and which record can be used for direct re¬
duction or as a master from which a matrix can be formed
’or producing duplicates. I have embodied claims on this
lew reoord in an application filed on even date herewith.
The present invention resides principally in the
■ormation of the sinuous reoord groove by cleanly outting
he material coincident therewith, so as to thereby remove
ore or less continuous shavings or.ohips of the material,
0 distinguished from the operations now performed, wherein
material is merely compressed or orowded to one side or the-
other of the normal or medial line of the recording stylus,
i. e. , the line which the recording stylus would traverse
if uninfluenced by the vibratory movements of the diaphragm.
The invention also preferably further resides in the pre¬
liminary formation in the recording surface of a Bhallow
spiral groove formed by the action of a grooving tool which
precedes the recording stylus, She spiral groove in ques¬
tion being of less depth and width than the record -when
formed, '.thereby the amount of material which requires to be
removed by the recording stylus is. somewhat reduced, to
thereby render the latter more accurately responsive to the
ribrations of the diaphragm and to thus secure a record
that is more nearly graphically representative of the sound
ribrations. This feature of the prooess may, however, be
imitted.
Any suitable apparatus for carrying the process into
offset nay be employed, but I preferably males use of sound
recording apparatus of the type described and claimed in my
application for patent filed November 8th, 1901t Serial No.
81,534, of which the present case is a division.
In order that the invention may be better under¬
stood, attention is directed to the accompanying drawings,'
forming a part of this specification, and in whioh
Figure 1 is an elevation, partly in section, illus¬
trating a portion of a recording apparatus of the type de¬
scribed in said application;
Figure 2, a plan view of the same;
Figure 3, an enlarged sectional view through a rec¬
ord, illustrating the grooving tool and the preferred form
of recording stylus;
Figure 4, a longitudinal seotional view of the re-
jording stylus shown in figure 3;
-3-
Figure 5, an enlarged plan of the preliminary
groove and record groove respectively, formed by the groov¬
ing and recording tools shown in figure 3;
Figure 6, a saotion on the line 6—6 of figure 5;
Figure 7, a section on the line 7—7 of figure 5; on<
Figure 8, a cross-sectional view, illustrating the
preferred construction of reproducer for engagement with the
reoord groove.
In all of the above views, corresponding parts are
represented by the same minerals of reference.
A suitable rotating platen 1, mounted on a vertical
shaft 3, carries a flat disklike record 3 made preferably
of the usual waxlike recording material with a thiokness of
say one-fourth inch, and which reoord is clamped to the
platen by means of the thumbscrew 4. A frame 6 connects
it one end with the usual feed-screw (not shown), and is sup-
3 or ted at the other end on the usual traveler-bar 6, a latch
7 being employed to elevate the frame from the reoord when
desired. The frame 5 is formed with an eye 8 therein, in
whioh is mounted the casing 9 of the recorder. This casing
is pivoted at 10, and its weight is partly counteracted by
a spring 11, the tension of whioh oan be regulated by an ad¬
justing screw 12. The casing 9 Carries the usual diaphragm
13, above which is mounted the disk 14 provided with a fun¬
nel 16, the parts being held in position by the usual claus¬
ing ring 16. The speaking tube (not shown) is carried with¬
in a tubular heok 17, which projects within the funnel 18
md is supported by a bracket 18 from the frame 5, wbe reby
the recorder as a whole will be free to partake of move-
aent independently of the speaking ti&e.
Extending downwardly from the oasing 9 is an arm
L9 carrying a spring 20. Connecting the diaphragm 13 with
laid spring Is a bell-crank lever 21 and links 22. The
spring 20 is normally under tension, so as to exert stress
upon the diaphraga 13, to thereby prevent lOBt motion in
the connections between the diaphragm and said spring. At
the free end of the spring 20 is a socket 23 arranged pref¬
erably at an angle to the surface of the record 3, as shown
in figure 3, and said socket receives the shank of the re¬
cording tool 24.
The preferable form of recording tool 1b that il¬
lustrated, the tool being provided with a curved cutting
edge 25, with a reduced ne.ok 26 behind the cutting edge and
with a concaved forward edge 27, which increases the sharp¬
ness of the cutting edge. 'J?he cutting edge 25 Bhould at
least extend coincidently with tho bottom and sides of the
recording tool, and preferably said outting edge extends
completely around the forward extremity of the outting tool,
in order that the latter my be turned when worn to present
new outting surfaces. Shis recording tool may be made of
the usual sapphire or other jewel, or of hardened steel.
The preferred apparatus for carrying my
process into effect also contemplates a socket 28 oarried
by the casing 9 of the recorder, which socket sustains a
grooving tool 29 similar to an ordinary phonographic reoord-
sr and which forms a relatively shallow and narrow groove
Ln advance of the recorder, in order that the material which
aust be removed by the latter will be reduoed to a minimum,
[his grooving tool 29 forms a groove in the reoording sur-
Ehoe 3 corresponding with the medial or normal line of out
>f the reoording devioe, so that tho latter -in v Jvibrating
rill remove the material by a outting action to one side
)r* the other of said groove.
In operation, the reoording surface 3 is rotated
md the reoording stylus and grooving tool 29 (if used) are
: loved radially with respect to said surface, so that said
-5-
tools will out a spiral groove therein. If, now, the dia¬
phragm 13 is vibrated by sound waves , the cutting recorder
will be vibrated to cleanly cut the material to the proper
depth and on either side of the shallow and narrow groove
preliminarily formed by the grooving tool 29. This eff eot
is very clearly illustrated in figure 5, in which 30 repre¬
sents the groove formed by the grooving tool and 31 repre¬
sents the record groove whioh is oleariLy cut by the out-
ting recorder. Reference to figures 6 and ? respectively
indicates the relative depth and width of these groove's.
After the record is formed, it may be engaged by a spherical
reproducing device 32, preferably of the type which I de¬
scribe and claim in my application for Letters Patent f iled
November 8th, 1901, and numbered serially 81,535, or said
record may be used as a master from which a matrix oan be
made by known prooesseB and duplioate records secured there¬
from in any suitable way.
In practioe, the weight of the recording devices
oompriBing the partB sustained from the pivot 10 causes the
cutting reoorder to engage always to the proper depth in
the reoording material, so that any variations in the verti¬
cal thiokness of that material, due to imperfections in its
manufacture or to warping or distortion arising from any
causa, will not affect the depth of the out, since the re¬
corder will be free to rise and fall, to thereby accommodate
such variations.
By thus making a record as explained, the friction
resisting the vibration of the reoorder is reduced to a
minimum, first, beoause the recorder is not required to he
engaged entirely through the reoording material, as with the
processes now in vogue for making these reoords, and second,
beoause the reoorder is provided with a outting edge whioh
oleanly outs the waxlike material of the record, instead of
srowding or aompreosing it to one side, a3 with apparatus of
the type at present in use.
Having now described ray invention, what I claim as
lew and desire to secure hy letters Patent is os follows :-
1. The process of making a graphic record repre¬
sentative of sounds, which consists in engaging a cutting
bool with a record surface, in subjecting the cutting tool
to the influence of sound -waves, whereby it will be caused
to be vibrated in a plane parallel to and within said sur¬
face, and in effecting a relative movement of the surfaoe
with respeot to said cutting tool, whereby a sinuous record
groove will be oleanly out in said surfaoe and the material
will be completely removed by the cutting tool in the line
of its path, substantially as and for the purpose Bet forth.
2. The process of making a graphic record repre¬
sentative of sounds, which oonsists in engaging a outting
tool partially within but not through a record surface, in
subjecting the cutting tool to the influence of sound waves,
whereby it will be caused to be vibrated in a plane parallel
to and within said surfaoe, and in effecting a relative move¬
ment of the surface with respect to said outting tool, where¬
by a sinuouB record groove will be oleanly cut in said sur¬
faoe and the material will be completely removed by the cut¬
ting tool in the line of its path, substantially as and for
the purposes set forth.
3. The process of making a graphic record represen
tatlve of sounds, which consists in oleanly outting in a
waxlike blank a sinuous sound wave, substantially as set
forth.
4. The prooess of making a graphic record repre¬
sentative of sounds , which oonsists in oleanly outting in a
waxlike blank a sinuous sound wave -presenting. : a aurved
-7-
oross-Beotiori and of uniform depth and width throughout,
substantially as Bet forth.
of making a graphio record repre¬
blank aiid in forming in lino with said groove a deeper sinu-
oub record groove, substantially as set forth.
jT^ Jit The process of making a graphio record repre¬
sentative of sounds, consisting in cutting a groove in a
blank and in outting in line with said groove a deeper sin¬
uous reoord groove, substantially as set forth.
4 JK The process of making a graphio reoord repre¬
sentative of sounds, which oonBietB in engaging a grooving
tool within a recording surface, in engaging a recording
stylus with said surface in line with said grooving tool
but to a grsater depth and width than said tool, in subject¬
ing the recording stylus to the effeot of Bound waves,
whereby it will be vibrated in a plane parallel to the re¬
oord surface, and in effecting s
slative movement of said
surface with respect to said grooving tool and recording
stylus, whereby the grooving tool will out a shallow and
narrow groove in said surface in advance of the recording
stylus, substantially as set forth.
3 SPECIFICATION SIGNED AND WITNESSED THIS
Oath.
State of
£011111? of
T H 0 M A B A. 3 B I S 0 N , the above-named
PETITIONER, BEING DULY SWORN, DEPOSES AND SAYS THAT HE IS A OltiSSOn
OF THE United States and a resident of Llewellyn Park, Orange ,
In the County of Bsbox and State of Hew Jersey j
THAT HE VERILY BELIEVES HIMSELF TO BE THE ORIGINAL, FIRST AND SOLE INVENTOR
OF THE iJiPROVmara IN PROCESSES OS’ MAKING SOUND RECORDS
DESCRIBED AND CLAIMED IN THE ANNEXED SPECIFICATION; THAT HE DOES NOT
KNOW AND DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THE SAME WAS EVER KNOWN OR USED BEFORE
' HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF; OR PATENTED OR DESCRIBED IN ANY
PRINTED PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY
BEFORE HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF, OR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR
TO THIS APPLICATION; OR IN PUBLIC USE OR ON SALE IN THE UNITED STATES FOR
MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THIS APPLICATION, AND THAT NO APPLICATION
FOR FOREIGN PATENT HAS BEEN FILED BY HIM OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OR
; • , ■
LL^_ Jtsr*4' (&v / & 9J
. ~'*~ ' CC
Sxjy* '* -'
■ 7lwi#t*> ) - - , . ■
(w _ / V ; ia->. L t^^y C-iUui
i:^L fX? /^Wl- ,%“~\
' / y, ^ «*«*.* <W!-^ • O
j. '-vw -Vt-D ^'Uut^< , -A. Cm*-CC'Vv-V^> f,|/' ' a
'•;.'^rr* -
: *«.** ^ _,
4 ^ - «"* i ~ V- - ~rL7r
\-^a^- J'i , &c~t- ^ V';- “ ‘ "*'
■■ eu~ eu -Ji ,0^^ • " 'tuisi** —
I't^t-tl 3 I -S’ - '-’r^o ^ .■■£*■ A
&*«, <U^ 3 4-<fo- */- ^
JU*. i 27
ev -W^fc^L'.« .■•***'
rU*~»- ,..■■■
''• if? . <^*"
7/c^U '
; 7lu. 5^ ^ ^
£ "72L, ^ — ■ '■< v *
"£ ^ -
hu~* »- - - 3 ^ •f
f~) ^‘- “‘ /*t*^'#fcJ ^
-./.*. <f. jr-if *< r*~~ r~-' ~
a^L,- ^/~«C
j, p,
W- ^ -i 2t— — <> '-—
— r- - - — / nu. •*-*:
-/- T/L, "> ^ ~ /4-r- " ^
^ /X— 7 ■/•^— ^ __ .,r~~ . 3 ?- */.
tv.^uu-1 ■*.**-■ ^ *■■■
y , ^ ^ ^
a. ~~Cv-*'-
«W,..^.> *.. *~nC. ^
~6r <*. c«i^( ^ *-® A~ *''—
I ‘HO^t4 *■> Ar-H^t ,
iU'~.*>* '"* "■ *■ *; *■*<;*
^ 'A.? irfrA^ vJ - «-n-' »
::^ . > ^ v ; iu/^^-o ~ *° *“
<_ ; ?C_
-■</«__
I ,L • ■&-? * 4./«~>yy “A*" ^ -;
^IZZ^M^. ii *'*• >-/■ '*> "“’ ~~ . ;|
'•/£- v. .' -f- •*_•*-. 4 -.;|
l<u-» — <-* - ______^'l
[ CU 5^/'“-'
\'ju Ytu~-~:»^~*~ V -~~» e<w" '"*•■
[ tu^/^a < ^ ^
i " . / , ;7_,t '/£jiJ<*~''-‘ /
! *1*. /i^Ux *"<^- ^ _ x
- . x , . l_j-u<~^i. 'Z'6—^C
r ^4_x -zr ^*~'~
\. fo \iU*~£r~-**-- ~- }y~~
■ 7 U b ~ C/ v£ sL*^
I . *■"» Yh^~*+ •^~ ? J
!:/ \ > 4^ ~ ~ —
I ^ ^-^3^
; js 4«^w
!':/,. <?. ~>J'-^x W^ ~ y
y. ,, ,., _ x. /w. /*'.**. • ‘•/^
w«~ A- ~— ^
\jJc~m~J4 ~M- h *~T5~.
: > x _ J. S .. . ,t W<
: ’T^UV'*-
j: iCi**-' £-U'^w
//w-w^x. ( /. 7 ■ - j
— .'■'■ ' *•- •/ i
w /-•'A ;
:oL*h*~~ , A: *A~ ^ ^ — ~~.-i
^ *c^fj*~: *> N^'i
iiAVs^v .x, X
- /id- *-tf~u-'£-
/> 1 , € , ^6 - ij .—
""* * *'*^'*1, Ufi.$.*A*. ( , £■— ^
^ — .:•••
J5u~~ ^
Lviwj **~> ^■;rru^^ ""
1-5- '*aCfc . ? ^ ^ - 3 * ^ ^
|>i. ^ ^
i <*» *-<4+- «-*- ^-.•*-^— <a A-
77- - ' ^ <s3w^w* <*~*~-*~ ~
, - , ’, ■ ^ *T7 "’~^'
; /iLXUJD >^»-! c^£r-t-c.c <5-^ *~o-c*~~-~*p —
/4L«> * *— /5c^tH)
' f 1/ , ft-*-** ,
; to-ri^d -7L^u*-a "^O
i1 ^ .
... *>u^ a SH-ui iL~r'tn«~~ /-
/>.?■£. V£ - v <?
' tjf. • $£**■*?, <s5S^-*u~*C ✓'i*~
— ex
X
j rLcs/ic 'hcc~c~
£t-M » /^ ' -'
■6 . <r<3 .J-/ ^<^-
: k ^ ^ “ *%
-tU.^ -wo Hr-" ... ;
United States Patent Office,
. Thomas A* J5dison,
Caro Dyer,i3dinonda & Dyer, f
#31 iraaaau Street, I
Hew Yorl;,lT.Y. I
Please find below a communication from the EXAMINER
».C., July 9,1802VC^^TT
u. s. PATENT OFFie^i
JUL 8 1902 r
Bailed.
Claims 1 to 4 Inclusive, are rejected for want of
patentable novelty in view of the patent of Jones .December 10,
1901, #688,739, Duplicating Devicoe, and Adama-Fandall’ a Bnfjlish
Patent #1058 of 1889 (Qranhnnhonaal.-
Claim8 5 to 7 inclusive, are rejected for mnt of
patentable Invention in view of the patents of Heysineer, November
11,1690, ^-#440,155, (Grqphonhones) and Berliner, December 17,1901,
#689,350, (Oraphophono-l’ablete),
Case No.,/<f:..Paper No . if...
r
THOMAS A. EDISON
PROCESS OP MAKING SOUND RECOKDS
PILED JUNE 4, 1902
SERIAL NUMBER 110,159
ROOK HUMBER 219.
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS,
Sir:
Reconsideration of the claims is respectfully re¬
quested. The first four olaims are limited to the formation
of a sinuous record groove "by a true cutting action.
So far as the British patent to Adams-Eandall is
concerned, it refers only to the employment of a "traoer or !
traveller", which is illustrated in Figure 43 as a common j
wire. The patent does not describe any reoorder having i
i
true cutting edges, nor does it refer to the out ting of a |
sinuous record groove.
So far as the patent to Jones ,is concerned, it is
true that the specification refers to the formation of a
sinuous groove by "cutting or engraving", but immediately
before this statement the patent soys that the record is made
"in a well known manner". At the date of the Jones applica¬
tion the well known manner of making sinuous grooved records
was by means of a needle-like reoorder, and this must be the
prooess which Jones had in mind. Furthermore, in his draw¬
ing (Pig. 1) Jones shows an ordinary recording needle, which
is not provided with cutting edges.
Case No.^£paper No..s&
A somewhat analogous situation was presented during
I the pendency of the application for Edison' b patent Ho.
393,967, against which the Bell & Taint er patent No. 341,214
was oited. In that patent Bell Sr. Tainter refer to. and claim
the engraving or outting of the record in a wax-like material.
Edison, however, calls attention to the fact that the opera¬
tion performed by Bell & Tainter was not a true cutting ac¬
tion, but was a scraping effect, and in view of this faot
broad claims were allowed in the Edison patent on the outting
of the record “in contradistinction to the formation of suoh
sound records by a scraping action. “ We submit that in' the i
present case the Jones patent does not bear any oloser anal-:
ogy to Edison's present invention than did the Bell & Tainter
patent approximate the invention of the prior Edison patent. :
So far as the patent to Heysinger is concerned, we 1
distinguish the fifth, sixth and seventh claims therefrom
in the following respects: With applicant's invention the
preliminary groove is formed for the purpose of reducing the ;
work on tho cutting recorder, whereas with the Heysinger pat-'
ent tho preliminary groove is formed for the purpose of mere¬
ly guiding tho indenting recorder and without in any way pro¬
ducing the work performed in the latter. With applicant's
invention the record groove is sinuous, whereas with the Hey¬
singer patent the record groove is truly spiral. With ap¬
plicant’s invention the record groove is out, whereas with
the Heysinger patent the record groove is indented. Finally,
with applicant's invention the record groove is wider than
the preliminary groove, whereas in tfye Heysinger patent the
record groove is narrower . than the preliminary groove.
2* Case Paper No.,
So far as the Berliner patent is concerned, we do
not regard it as anticipating these claims, for the follow¬
ing reasons: With applicant's invention the record groove
is deeper than the preliminary groove, whereas with the Ber¬
liner patent the record groove is shallower than the prelim¬
inary groove, Bince, as shown in Figure 2, the preliminary
groove is not obliterated during the formation of the record
groove. With applicant's invention the record groove is
cut in line with the preliminary groove, whereas with the
Berliner patent the record groove is formed by means of the
ordinary needle-like stylus, which merely shapes or indents
the material, without cutting it.
In view of these considerations, we hope that the
claims may be allowed.
Very respectfully,
Attorneys for Edit
United States Patent Office;.'!
’atent Office,^ "••'"■kjj .
iH.NGTON. D. c.. %ivAuC.,,;' 28f 1903.
Care Oyer, Bdmonds and Dyer,
81 nasaau St., N. 7. City.
U. S. PAT^T OFFICE,
. . " 1 MAILED. I
Please fijul' below a communication from tile EXAMINER in charge of ' your application-,.
tor Process of Making Sound rs cords, filed June 4, 1908, Ho. 110,
■R Ji.astL. .
This action is in response to the amendment filed the 7tli.
lnat. :
Applicant iebellevad^iobe In error In stating that
the pat ont of 5 Adama-Randall doee not dssbrlbs a "but* record.
. ga# Paragraph beginning line 35j page 9 'Of SAid^pat ent’ " ^adt ' Wee'
aleo paragraph beginning- line 48 same page autitngwetylus
Wth a "knife edge*. As to whether Adoma-Raiidall urnkba a alnuoue
record groove tho device illustrated in Pig. 43 of hla patent
cannot make other than a sinuous record groove aa ahoen in s*lg. 44.
In view of thla explanation of the examiner* a opinion
of the dlacloauro In the Adama-Randall patent there appears to
be no reason for departing from the grounds at rejection recited
In the last official letter with regard to claims 1 to 4 and their
' rejection Is repeated. c „ „>xv. . _ . , ^
With regard to, claims 3 to 7 It may be stated that both
Berliner and Hey singer have fonaed preliminary grooves In order
to lessen the work of the' recording stylus. Applloant simply ax-
tkds the idea in Hey singer and Berliner, and while Hey singer has
a prepared groove of less depth than the record groove, and Bor-
^ase Na.y^Paper ' V
page 2 of Edisoni
liner haa a prepared groove of less width than the record groove
, appliotmt haa a prepared groove of leee depth and less width
than the after made record groove.
It is held that this change made by applicant does not
constitute invention in view of the patent e cited « and claime
5 to 7 are again rejected.
Case Ho,„. Paper No.^?..
ibrOMAS A. EDISON
'ROOESS 03? MAKING SOUND RECORDS
[(PILED ,TUN.E 4, 1902
SERIAL NO. 110,159
ROOM NO. 219.
!I[ON. COMMISSIONER OE PATENTS,
SIR:
Please amend by erasing claim 5 and
y renumbering the remaining claims.
V/e note that the Examiner still rejects the first
our claims on the British patent to Adams -Randall, and sup-
orts his contention that this patent describes a "cutVecord
eferences to page 9 of the specification thereof.
Concerning this patent, we contend:- E.irst, that
jit describes and illustrates mere details relating to the
old Edison indenting tin-foil phonograph; second, that it
does not describe or illustrate the cutting of a phonograph
record in 'the sense that the formation of these records is
ow understood; third, that it does not describe the outting
f a sinuous -groove record, nor does it describe or show
pparatus which could possibly be used for that purpose; and
ourth, that it is blind, obscure and totally lacking in any
isclosure which by any possible straining of language can
e regarded as the equivalent of applicant's invention.
In describing the first, and probably preferred form
>f apparatus, Bhown in figures 1 and 9, the specification of
.he patent refers to the "recording pen or style 23" (p. 5
..ine 1). With this apparatus, a phonographic record would
1 e formed, since the pen or style vibrates up and down with
regard to the recording surfaoe, and the apparatus could not
3 ossibly be used to make a record with a Binuous groove.
■ k0 specification then describes the modified form of appara-
Casc No./<£lPaper i
tun shown in figures 10 and 11, and refers to "a suitable
recording or reproducing device, — similar to that shown in
Fig. S3, or Fig. 35, or Fig. 36". These recording or re¬
producing devices are shown on sheet 4, and in every case a
pointed stylus is illustrated, identically like the indent¬
ing needle of the old tin-foil phonograph. Such a pointed
stylus is in no sense a cutting tool, nor .is it capable of
performing a cutting operation. A stylus of that kind obvi¬
ously could not be employed for cutting a sinuous record
groove, as applicant describes. So far as the modifica¬
tion Shown in figures 12 and 13 is concerned, no reference
whatever is made in the specification to the form of record¬
ing stylus used. With all the modifications illustrated
on sheet 3, no reference in the specification is made to the
recorder except to say that the latter is provided with guid¬
ing rollers 53, but in figures 21 and 22 the recorder is
clearly shorn as a needle or wire, as with the old tin-foil
phonograph. _ Concerning the modifications shown in figure
31 (sheet 2) and in figures 32 to 41 (sheet 5), no reference
whatever is made to the form of recorder used. In desoribl
the modification illustrated in figures 45 and 46 (sheet 6),
the specification refers, generally, to a recorder, but tho
drawing very clearly illustrates this recorder as a needle
or wire. The specification in describing the operation of
this device says that "a record is made in a spiral line"
(p. 7, line 13). Obviously, the waking of a reoord is a
very much broader expression than the cutting of a record.
Seme light is thrown on the construction of the re¬
corder on page 7 of the specification, in describing the de¬
vices shown in figures 32 to 37. Here the recorder is de¬
scribed as "a light rod 80". The specification says:-
"When luted as a recorder, motion la given to the diaphragm
ng
* * * , and tills motion Is Imparted to the rod, In
suoh manner that a record of the vibrations of 87 (the dia¬
phragm) can he recorded in suitable material. When used
as a reproducer, the device is passed over the record in
the recording mat erica and motion is thereby given to the
rod or pen which is imparted to the diaphragm" (p. 7, lines
35—41). It is thus clear that the stylus is used both
for recording and reproducing, exactly like the needle of
the old tin-foil phonograph. The rodlike stylus cannot,
therefore, be provided with cutting edges, beoRuse if it
were it could not be used for reproducing. Furthermore, it
is not described as being provided with cutting edges, and
its operation is not referred to as a cutting action. Fi¬
nally, in the drawings it 1b clearly shown as a needle or
sire.
The"reoording pen or style 112" (p. 8, line 2)
shown in figure 3B (Bheet 4) is also a needle, and in line
3 i't is referred to as a “rod, pen or style".
In describing the modification shown in figure 42
(sheet 5), the specification refers to the "tracer or trav¬
eller 23" (p. 8, line 19), and further on (line 25) to "the
recording p_olntH. This is clearly not a cutting tool, nor
me capable of performing a cutting operation.
All of the devices so far referred to in the Adams -
Sandal 1 patent are obviously phonographic apparatus, wherein
the stylus is vibrated up and down with respect to the sur¬
face. They have no bearing whatever on the present oase,
mt have been referred to in order to show that even with
-hat type of devtoe a cutting reoorder 1b not employed,
tie only phonautographic or sinuous -groove apparatus is shown
.n figures 43 and 44, in descrlbiig whioh the stylus is re-
: 'erred to as "a recording or reproducing tracer or traveller"
p. 8, lines 35 — 36), whioh is later on specifically descried
I -
an a "rod 141" (line 37).
j After referring to various forms of recording sur-
faoes for use with "this form of recording apparatus, by
which the sound vibrations are graphically recorded", the
patentee describes the reoord as being "graphically traced,
at a minimus resistance” (p. 9, line 8).
In describing the operation of the several devices
illustrated in his patent, Adams -Randall states that "sound!
made or uttered at the mouthpiece are reoorded by means of
the style or pen, in the recording material by a line of in¬
dentations or graphically, as and in the manners well known"
(p. 9, lines 16 — 18). In reproducing, "the reoording nen
or traveller, following in_the lines of the reoord, is vi¬
brated" (p. 9, lines 36, 37), "thus converting the recorder
into a reproducer" (lines 39, 30). Thus it will be seen
that the patentee distinguishes the two types of apparatus
described in his patent, as those adapted, first, to fom a
or "graphically" (phonautographically)
reoord by "a line of .indentations" ' (phonographically) * b£t
the making of these records is referred to as being well-
known. Apparently Adams -Randall, at the time of taking out
his patent, knew only of the original tin-foil phonograph,
as a noedlolike reo order is always shown, and that recorder
is described as being used as a reproducer for securing re¬
productions. The reoorder oannot be provided with cutting
edges, because in that case it could not be used as a repro¬
ducer. It is true that in describing the devioe shown in
figure 35, on page 9, the specification states that "the reo¬
ord will be more positively, and deeply out, engraved or
made In the material" (lines 36, 37), and this we understand
is one of the statements on which the Kjceminer baseB his
opinion that Adaras-Randall describes a "out" reoord. It is
to he observed, however, that the reoorder of figure 35 ie
•4-
previously referred to in the specif ication rb a rod, and no
outting edges are desorlbed. Apparently, the patentee usod
the terms "cutting ", "engraving " and "making" synonymously.
At any rate, even considering that a cutting action is re¬
ferred to and admitting that the specification describes and
the drawings show a true cutter, the reference world still
not he pertinent, sinoB the recorder of figure 35 is a phono-
graphic. devioe,and :not a- phonautoreraphic or ninuous-groove
device. In other words, so far rb this reference is con¬
cerned, the Adams-Handall patent would not he as pertinent
as any patent showing an ordinary phonographio outting tool.
Further on the specification says that good repro¬
ductions can he obtained from the reverse side of the ^in¬
dentations or lines of the record" (p. 9, lines 45—49), and
this is especially true "if a flat, thin, sharp recording
pen or style having a knife edge and much more width than
thickness — a miniature ohisel — iB employed" (p. 9,
lineB 50, 51). This statement we understand offers the
Examiner additional basis for his opinion that Adams-Han¬
dall describes a "out" record. Chisel-like recorders were,
however, known long prior to Adams-Handall, and are described,
for example, in the origins. Bell and Tainter patent. The
reference to a chisel-like recorder is made, it will be ob¬
served, only in connection with records formed of "indenta¬
tions or lines", and is not made in connection with graphic
orrphonautographio records. It would be probttoly easy to
reproduce from the reverse side of an original Edison tin-
foil record having indentations, but it would be impossible
without the exercise of invention to reproduce from the re¬
verse side of a graphi'h orphonautographic- record. Adams-
Handall apparently recognised this, because he limits his
reference to a chisel-like recorder to an apparatus of the
-8-
phonographic type*
Sven, however, if we admit that Adams-Randall de-
Isorlbes the employment of a chisel-like recorder for foming
a sinuous-groove record, it is obvious that suoh a. recorder
would not perform a cutting action, since it is not provided
with side outting edges. In fact, for the formation of sutf
a reoord, a chisel-like recorder would he inferior to a
needle reoorder.
When the Adams-Rnndall patent in, therefore, taken
as a whole, we submit that it has no bearing whatever on the
present case, and relates, in fact, to an entirely different
type of apparatus. It certainly cannot be argued that the
patent describes a cutting tool especially adapted for form¬
ing a cleanly out sinuous reoord groove, or describes the
formation of such a reoord groove as applicant specifically
Iolaims. In the absence of a definite reference, to the in¬
vention which applicant is claiming, we submit that the pat¬
ent should be withdrawn.
The original fifth claim has been erased on the theo¬
ry that as it wae broad, enough to cover the formation of
the record by a needlelike reoorder, it was probably not
sufficiently distinguished from the Berliner patent of reo¬
ord.
So far as the present fifth and sixth claims are con¬
cerned, they are both limited to the outting of the reoord
groove, ar.d are, therefore, subordinate to the first four
olaims. If the first four claims are patentable, and we
submit with all earnestness that they are, then the last two
claims should, we believe, be allowed with them,
Very resp.eotf.ully,
THOMAS A . EDISON,
By _
HewYork, August 38, 1903. Ills Attorneys*
2-200.
Room No. _ ?J-7f
commmifcof'oni timid bt'addreiicdff f H» D«
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
United States Patent Office,
Washington, d. c. 8ept. 9,19O2.^'^£0g>vs
Thomas A. JOdicon,
Care Dyer, JMtaonda ft Dyer,
31 Nassau Stroot,
Now Vork,N.Y.
D. S. PATENT OFFICE,
SEP 9 1902
M AILED.
Please find below a communication from the EXAMINER in charge of your applicati
for Process of Making Sound-Records ,f lied June 4,1902, serial
number 110,169.
This aotion is in response to tho amendment filed
the 29th ult too.
It seems clear from a reading of the file in t J» patent
of Jones citod that the step of “cutting or engraving*. the record
groove referred to' therelnr-contemplates a cutting out or removal
of' the cut materlta by ‘the^ late ml .vibration of the style,, Tiho
first four claims are again;rej)octed'in- view of the patents of-;
Jones and AdamS-Randall cited.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected in view of Jones, Adaras-
Randall, Berliner and Hey8lnger,citod.
Case Paper No,...Y^t....
THOMAS A. EDISON
PROCESS OP MAKING SOUND RECORDS
I'll®) JUNE 4, 1903
SERIAL NO. 110,159
ROOM NO. 319
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OR PATENTS,
SIR : -
We note that the Examiner, In again
rejecting the olaims, still adheres to the British patent
to Adams-Randall. In our last argument we oarefully analy¬
zed this reference, and hoped at the time that we had con¬
vinced the Examiner of its entire irrelevanoy. We oan add
nothing to what we have already said in regard to the pat¬
ent, and we request, therefore, that the Examiner will again
he kind enough to oonsider it in the light of our argument.
Wfe repeat, concerning this reference, that it relates only
to the old indenting method, and does not even show a out-
ting tool for making a phonograph record. It oertainly
does not show such a tool for making a sinuous groove reoord.
Concerning the patent to Jones, we submit the fol¬
lowing:
1. A oareful reading of the file of the Jones pat¬
ent does not disclose any positive and definite statement to
the effect that, in the making of his master reoord, Jones
employs a true outting operation in whioh the material is
aotually removed. Jones, in faot, states that his method
is that of the Bell and Tainter graphophone (patent No. 341,-
214, May 4, 1886), in whioh the formation of the reoord is
referred to as "cutting or engraving". This method is re¬
ferred to by Jones in the prosecution of his case as the
"engraving method". Edison patent No. 398,967 of May 4th
-."’I"' 1 Use No../^fpaper No,
1888 fully distinguishes the engraving method of the Bell
and Tainter patent from a true outting operation. In that
patent Edison said:
“Heretofore the recording point used has been oon-
struoted so that in forming the groove it removed the
material by a soraping action. This was due to the
fact that the advancing edge of the recording style
used was perpendicular to the recording surf&oe or re- .
ceded from the perpendicular, the result being a screw¬
ing rather than a true outting of the material. The
soraping action I have found to be productive of false
vibrations which become part of the rooord and whioh ,
are audible as soratohing and other foreign noises when
s°u«ds are reproduced. I have found that this
difficulty is overoome by employing a recording point
made as a true outting tool with a outting edge in ad¬
vance of the stook of the tool.”
This distinction between an engraving and a outting opera¬
tion was regarded by the Office as sufficient in character
to warrant the allowance of a generic claim on the latter
method. The first claim of the Edison patent in (jtuestion
is as follows:
"The method of recording sounds for reproduction,
consisting in impressing sound vibrations upon a cut¬
ting recording point and thereby outting in the reoord-
ing surface the record corresponding to the sound waves
in contradistinction to the formation of such' sound
records by a scraping aotion. "
If, therefore, the method suggested by Jones in the proseou-
tion of his case is the Bell and Tainter method as he says,
that method is distinguished from applicant's method, in
whioh a true outting operation is performed. Making this
assumption, the Jones method corresponds with the Bell and
Tainter patent, and applicant's method corresponds with his
former patent. If a true outting operation for the forma¬
tion of a phonograph reoord was patentably distinguished
from a soraping operation, then, we submit, a true outting
operation for the formation of a sinuous groove reoord should
be similarly distinguished.
2. After all, the only statement in the Jones pat¬
ent whioh has any bearing whatever on the present oase is
2
Case Paper
that the reoord groove is "out or engraved" . This state¬
ment however, as we have before pointed out, ia prooeded by
the statement that the reoord is made "in a well known man¬
ner". The only known method of making sinuous grooved
records at the date of Jones's application was by means of
a traoing point, aB suggested by Berliner. It was not new
to make suoh a reoord by either a scraping or a outting
operation, so that so far aB the patent itself is concern¬
ed, it is dear that it cannot relate to anything other thanl
the Berliner needlelike reoorder. It seems very probable,
in view of the proseoution of his oase, that Jones may have
contemplated the soraping or engraving method of the Bell
and Tainter patent, but if that is the oase, the specifica¬
tion of his own patent is misleading in stating that the
reoord is formed "in a well known manner". So far as we
can Judge, the only point of distinction that Jones had in
mind between his process and that of Berliner was that with
the latter a traoing operation through a film on an etohing
ground was performed, while with his prooess the engraving
tool (undesoribed and unillustratad) worked within the sur¬
face of the recording material. In fact, if the arguments
presented by Jones during the proseoution of his oase are
to be reconciled with the statement of his patent that his
reoords are formed "in a well known manner", it will have
to be assumed that this was the only distinction which Jones
sought to present between his prooess and Berliner's.
3. Even if it should be admitted that Jones, either
in his patent or in his arguments before the Patent Offioe,
had a clear conoeption of the possibility of forming a sinu¬
ous reoord groove by a true outting operation, the fact that
suoh a possibility is stated in his patent would not make
the patent a good reference. Edison, in addition to per-
Cacc No,./^J5aper No .
oeiving the possibility of making a record in this way, has
invented a new apparatus for its production, and therefore
must he presumed to he the first to actually secure the re¬
sult. Long prior to the invention of the Bell telephone,
Bourseul had suggested the possibility of transmitting speech
electrically, and he even had a vague dream of the means by
which that could he done. In sustaining the Bell patent,
the Supreme Court regarded these vague suggestions aB being
of so little importance in the way of anticipation as not
to require any special consideration by them. We do not
see how in the present case the equally vague suggestions
of .Tones oon have any weight in anticipating claims drawn
on a specific process carried out by the use of new and ori¬
ginal apparatus.
We hope, therefore, that upon reconsideration the
claims may be allowed, but if this oannot be done, then we
request that final action be taken.
Very respectfully,
I A. EDISON,
Attorneys.
New York, September 17, 1902.
Case No.../^paper No . .£
United States Patent Office,
Thomas A. Edison ,
Oar o By or, Edmonds & Dyer,
#31 llasaau Street,
Hew York,!I.y.
n
jujf C^rJ)/ )g*J
October 9ipJj9OP,*$s0y'
U. S. PA7EBT OFFICE,
OCT 9 1902
MAILED.
nicaUon from Hut EXAMINER in cha
for Process of Making Sound-Records, f.llod June 4,1908, serial number
serial 110,159.
This action is in response to the amendment filed the
18th ultimo.
In the first place it must be held that the Boll and
Tainter procoss of making an original record was a true cutting
process. In the patent of Bell and Tainter, May 4,1886, #341,814,
page 3, linos 70-73, the patenteo states that "This leaves sharp
cutting edges on both sides of the tapering point. Those edges
remove the material in chips or shavings like a plane or turning
tool". Then on page 6, lines 76 to 74, the patentee states -"The
term cutting is herein employed to indicate an action in which
the material is removed in chips, shavings, or small pieces, a3
in engraving, turning and the like, and not merely displaced. 11
Those statements seam to establish the fact that the stylus was a
true cutting stylus and that the recording process involved a
true cutting action and not a scraping action as held by applicant.
This was the well known Oraphophono "system". The action of the
examiner in granting patent #393,967 to the present applicant
notwithstanding the prior patent to Bell and Tainter, is not
controlling in this case whatever may have been the reasons of the
Examiner that caused him to decide that the matter claimed in
applicant* e patent was patentable as stated. It having boon
estalxL ished that Bell and Tainter's prooess was a true cutting
process, it now remains to construe tho meaning of tho term
"cutting or engraving" in the patent of Jones cited. Tho expres¬
sion "forming in a well known manner" in the patent, does not
negative the holding that tho record is formed by Jones by a
true cutting out or 3having process, for Bell and Taintor's process
and applicant's patented process wero both true cutting processes
and these were the wall known ways of forming graphophono records
for several years prior to tho application of Jones and in fact
tho only way known to tho Examiner in which up and down or grapho-
phone sound records had been made for years prior to the
Jones application. This Bell and Taint or process was a part of
the well known "graphophone systoin" referred to by Jono3,p. 1,
line 56 to line 68 and Jones states therein that his process
differs therefrom by cutting a lateral record wherein the
resistance to the stylus is uniform, wh areas in said patented
process the resistance to the stylus increases with the depth of
the cut, etc. This cutting out process was therefore doubtless
the "well known" cutting out or shaving prooess. Not only is this
doubtless true from the evidence of surrounding c Ire instances,
and from statements in the Jones patent/ but what Jones said in
his argument in the patented file, connected with the prosecution
of tho case clearly shows that so far as the cutting feature of
his process was concerned that it was the cutting out process of
Boll and Tainter applied to cut laterally in the plane of tho
surfaoe of the record instead of vertically in a plane at angles
to the surface of the record.
Claims 1 to 4 are finally rejeoted in view of the patents
of Jones & AdamB-Randall cited and claims 5 and 6 are finally
rejected in view of the patents cited. ‘ Cues No,/^^.Paper
THOMAS A. EDISON
PROCESS OP MAKING SOUND RECORDS
PILED JUNE 4, 1902
SERIAL NO. 110,159
ROOM NO. 219
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS,
SIR : -
In the above entitled application, we
hereby appeal from the decision of the Primary Examiner, who
on Ootober 9th 1903, rejected for a second time and finally
all of applicant's claims, and we submit the following rea¬
sons of appeal:
1. The Examiner erred in deciding that the refer¬
ences of record anticipate the terms of applicant's claims.
2. He erred in deciding that the referenoeB meet
the substance of those claims.
3. He erred in rejecting the olaims.
An oral hearing is respectfully requested.
The appeal fee of §10 is sent herewith.
Respectfully,
Attorneys for Edison.
New York, December 29, 1902.
Case No../&^Paper No,.../.?...
J.H.D. t ) 1
in THr3 UHITfJD 8TATBS PAIJ8HT OFFIOB.
Ootiy sent Applicant
Beford" the Hon. Board of
Bxaminor8-in-Chiof.
4 S.- PA-TEST OFFICE,
; JAN 9 1903
; Wi -A 1 L E-.P .
\axaminer»s Statement ■ £?/.'
' . .... ., •• •.. . "
Tho claims appealed are tvs foilowsi V,. _ ^
X* Thai probass of waking a graphic raoord representative
of sounds, vrtiioh oonaiste.in engaging a cutting tool with a raoord
•urfaoe, in subjecting the outtinc tool to tho lnfluanoa of sound
wyyps,' pheyeby it will, be caused to. bo vibratod in a plana parallel
'to., and- within bald surfaoe,:.ahd. ..in., effecting .a relative Movement
9f thb fliirfabe .iifdth p.eapbot. to .aaid , cutting tbolr yttbrbftir a
einu'bua rbbord groove will be cleanly out. in aaid surface ancl tho
ij4topla|. tf^i^be o.ettplotely rbmpyod by tho outting-tool in the
line orHilie.pathv. substantial,^, as and. for ,the. purpose set forth.
p. The process of making ft graphic reoord representative
of sounds, which consists in engaging a cutting tool partially
Within but not through a record surface, in subjeoting the butting
tool to -th e inf 1 nonce- of -sound waves , whereby • it wll 1 bo oaueed
to b'e, vibratod’ in a plana parallel to and within. said surface, and
in effeoting a relative hbyonent-., of the surf aos; with roepoot to
aaid butting tool, whereby a sinuous reoord groove will be oloenly
not out in aaid surface f^nd , the :J«yterial will bo oomplotply
removed by the cutting tool in the line of its path, substantially
aa and for tho purpose# aot.f prfc!»». .. v ; •
5. Tho process of making a graphic rooord roproaontative
of aounda, which ooioiats in. cleanly outting in a waxlike blank a
sinuous sound wave, substantially as bet forth*
4. Tho proeees. of .oakins , ft graphic; rooord representative 1
of sounds, which consists in cleanly butting in a waxliko blank a
sinuous, sound nave pr esonting a ouTWsd 'oroas-seotion and of uni¬
form depth and width throughout, Substantially as eot forth#
8. Tho process of making a graphio reoord representative
of eouhds, consisting in cutting1 a groove in a blank and in butting
in line with said groove a deeper einuoue reoord groove, substan¬
tially as sot forth. . t :■ .. i •••' ;
6. . The proeees, of, making a. -graphic, record repr eaentative- ;.
. , : Case No.. ,/^Paper
Application of ’ ■ )
Thomas A. Edison, for )
procss o of Making Sound-Records, )
Bilod June 4,1908, ' )
Bor. number ^10,169, V )
Attys:Dypr,2dmoncla & Byer )
#110,159 - -~X£.
of sottnds, which consists in engaging a grooving tool within a
raoonUng surface, in engaging a reoording stylus with said
surface in line with said grooving tool but to a greater depth and
widtfi than said tool, in subjecting the reoording stylus to the
effect Of sound w^vob, whereby it will be vibrated in a plane
paraiie^to the record surface, and in effecting a relative move¬
ment of /'said surface with respect to said grooving tool and
cording stylus, whereby tho grooving tool will out a shallow
fund narrow groov* in Bald surface in advance of the recording
stylus substantially as sot forth.
^ The reforonoee relied upon are ae followsi
Jones, Dec. 10, 1901 ,#588, 739, Oraphophone Tablets,
Duplicating Devices;
- i Heyslnger,JTov. 11,1890, #440,155, Oraphophone s; . -j,
. . Berliner, December 17,1901, #689,350, Oraphophones,Tab« J
. Adaas-Randall' s English Patent #1068 of 1889;
Boll and Tainter, Hay 4,1886, #941, 814, Graph., Disk!" •
• In considering the pertinency of the patents cited as
reforonoes, it must be established that at -least one of them
discloses'4'"' *• dearly cat' lateral or gramophone record.
The patent of Jones must be considered ift connect i cm
with this matter, and therein reference is made to "cutting or
engraving a record groove of uniform depth and having lateral
Uhdulati <ns* . The patentee states that this cutting or engraving
of a record groove by the lateral movement of the stylus differ*
from the operation of the well known zn-aphophono system in that
the Resistance offered the atylus of a graphophona in cutting
downward to produce the vertical irregularities characteristic
of t^iat system, varies.: praot ioolly as the cube of the depth of
in the Jones proces s.
the dub, Whereas the resistance ,1s practically uniform^ In other
word's, la the z^mphophone' system, the stylus cut vertically or
at an angle' to the plane of the rseord surface and in' the Jones
system the stylus' Cut laterally or parallel with the plane of the
record surface. The graphophona system referred to by Jones id
the well known system of the Bell and Taint or patent. .The present’;
applicant- and appellant has held that the Jones patent does not
1
.#110,169 - - - J»'.3
disclose a prooeas of outtinrc out the material to form a easord
in the form of a lateral undulation and the office has held that
if Bell and TaintBrdisclosos a out tine out action of the cutting
stylus, :;,rv that Jones' patent also disclosed such action of the
ptylus, for Jones has stated ad above, that the difference that
exists between him system and Boll andfainter is ohly in thb
piraction of the but and not in its other ohsraot eristics. To
prove that Bell and Tainter disclosed a true cut tine out actim,
attention is Invited to. the. following matter in said patents,
page's,' lines 70-75, and paee 6, lines 70-74. These statements-'
spem' to establish the faet that the recording process in said
patent involved a true out tine out aotlon of the outtinc stylus
and not > scran ine-aati on as ap plicant has hold.
Asldo from this Ground of rejection, thepatoit of
^.dam^-R^idall discloses a description of a out lateral sound
record formod by the vibration of a stylus ha vine knife odees.
Attention is oalled in this connection to this patentee's Ficures
45 and 44.
The. above erounds of rejection are those that have been
aseienod in bar of olaims 1, 3 and 4.
Claims 6 and 6 have been rejected in view of the
patents above cited and explained, and the patents of Berliner and
Hey singer.
Borliner discloses a previously formed plain spiral
• Groove arid a sound'' record formed in the wills of said Groove by
a latorally vibrating stylus'.
Heysineor discloses a plain out groove and a record
formed in th o' bottom of the croovS.
Ranson‘,s JSng. Pat. #7685 Of 1888, (not sited) discloses
a :cut ,nla.i^^b»b and a jjU.re«ord Groove in the previously formr
..ed'
#110,169 - - r if f
It is held that in -view of tho patents of Jonas, Adams-
Raudall and Boll and Tain or, disclosing out ting systems, and tho
patents Of Berlin or, Hey singer and Ranson disclosing plain pre¬
viously fornud .pilain grooves and records thoreinrafter made in
several different ways, 'that the subjects matter of claims 6 and
6 do hot involve the exercise of patentable invention.
Respectfully submitted!
Examiner, Division XXIII.
January 9,1905.
Case Paper No,...£L
2-201.
Room No. 242. - -
■Th^c„mmi..i,r.r.f_p.i.ni., Department of the Interior,
&JuU)< Gl <$o£o0oru
, $o£cAC^c£(&t^-~
JJL _
pis appeal from the decision of the Examiner in the case of..
. - - .... - far a patent for an improvement inCx
. 0 ylfruc&o
filed 4^. . , lOOSf, Serial JV'o...J./.(P,./.S^f^., will he heard by the
Examiners-in- Chief, JV^^CC^ S5^ _
If appellant, or his attorney, shall not appear at that time the hearing will
be regarded as waived, and the case will be decided upon the record.
Very respectfully,
jf
Commissioner of Patents.
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE.
THOMAS A. EDISON
PROCESS OP MAKING SOUND RECORDS
EIDED JUNE 4, 1902
SERIAL NO. 110,199
BEFORE THE
EXAMINERS IN CHIEF
ON APPEAL.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT.
The present lnrentlon relates to the process of
making zigzag or sinuous groove or so-oalled gramophone
sound records in which the record groove is of uniform depth
and width, as distinguished from ordinary phonograph reoords
in which the record groove is of varying depth and width.
The improved process oontemplates the use of a cutting tool
held at an single to the recording surfaoe and having Bottom
and side outting edges whereby a sinuous reoord groove will
be oleanly out in the recording material and will present a
ourved oross-section throughout. In order to reduce the
labor of the recording devioo a grooving tool is employed,
working in advance of the recorder and outting in the re¬
cording material a ourved groove of less depth and width
than the reoord groove, whereby the groove bo preliminarily
formed will be obliterated by the reoord groove- Before
appellant's invention, gramophone reoords had been made with
a .needlelike reoordor whioh merely traced a reoord groove in
the recording material and formed the undulations in the
reoord largely by crowding or displacing the material to
one side or the other of the normal medial line. .Of course
even with a needlelike reoordor as heretofore used, a part
of the material of the record groove would be removed, al¬
though to a great extent the reoord groove was formed by
this crowding or sidewise displacing of the material. The
claims are all limited to the putting of a zigzag reoord
groove, and the last two olaime are additionally limited
to the preliminary formation of a shallow groove for the
purpose of reducing the load imposed on the reoorder. By
employing a recorder having true outting edges, friotional
resistance between the reoorder and the material is so much
reduced as to make the resulting records more nearly repre¬
sentative of the original sounds.
The olaims are principally rejeoted by the Examiner
on the patent to JoneB No. 688739 of Deoember 10th 1901, in
»hioh reference is made to the "outting or engraving of a
record groove by the lateral movement of the stylus". In
this Jones patent the invention is distinguished from _
"the well known graphophone system in that the resis¬
tance offered the stylus of a graphophone in outting
downward to produce the vertioal irregularities charac¬
teristic of that system varies practically as the oube
of the length of the vibrations of the diaphragm and
stylus, whereaB in producing my original reoords the
resistance encountered by my recording stylus is- exact¬
ly equal to the length of the vibrations."
in order to show what the "graphophone system" 1b, the Ex¬
aminer refers to the patent to Bell & Tainter No. 341214
< .ated May 4, 1886, whioh he states discloses a true outting
pperation in connection with the formation of phonograph
•eoords. The position of the Examiner is —
"that if Bell & Tainter discloses a outting out action
of the outting stylus, that Jones1 patent also dis doses
suoh action of the stylus , for Jones haB stated, as
] above, that the difference that exists between his sys¬
tem and Bell & Tainter is only in 'the, direction of the
cut , and not in itB other Characteristics. " 7
j t is to bo observed, in the first place, that the Jones
latent doeB not state tha.t the invention thereof differs
from the suggestion of Bell & Tainter "only in the direction
< f the out and not in its other characteristics", for the
leason that Jones doeB not refer to the Bell & Tainter pat-
2
oat, nor does ho say that the only characteristic difference
between his invention and the graphophone system is in the
direction of the cut.
The bald reference in the Jones patent to the "cut¬
ting or engraving of a reoord groove by the lateral movement
of the stylus" is not, in our opinion, a sufficiently dear
and comprehensive disclosure of appellant's Invention as to
fairly anticipate the claims. Appellant has invented a new
recorder having side and bottom cutting edges by means of
which a zigzag reoord may be truly out in the recording ma¬
terial. Jones does not illustrate nor does he describe his
recorder with sufficient particularity aB to enable it to be
determined with certainty that it is of a form by whioh a
zigzag record may be truly out, as distinguished from a mere
displacement of the material by a needlelike reoorder. . It
seems to us that if the olaims are to be considered as an¬
ticipated, Jones's patent should disolose their subjeot-
matter with sufficient particularity as to enable anyone
skilled in the art to oarry the invention into effect. It
is perfectly dear that Jones doeB not lay any stress on the
"outting or engraving" of the material, as distinguished
from a mere displacement of the material by a needlolike
reoorder. In hiB patent he states that "heretofore reoords
of this oharaoter" have been formed by traoing in a fatty
film covering an etohlng surface eto. (page 1 lines 17 — 28).
This is the well known Berliner needlelike reoorder. In
describing his own invention he refers first to the kind of
tablet used (page 1 lines 44—50), and sayB that a reoord
groove is formed on this tablet "by the use of a sound re¬
cording maohine in a well known manner". Since the only
well known manner of recording these sinuous reoord grooves
was by means of a needlelike reoorder, and as this is admit-
3
tad in the patent itself, we do not eee how it oan he argued
that the reoording machine referred to possesses any speoial
oharaoteristios whioh distinguish it from the Berliner re¬
corder. Apparently all that Jones did was to use an ordi¬
nary Berlin or reoording needle for tracing a reoord direotly
in a wax surface, as distinguished from the traoing of the
reoord through a protecting film. Jones evidently refers
to suoh traoing operation as "outting or engraving''. It
is quite Immaterial what words JoneB may have UBed in his
patent so long as the idea is different from that oovered
hy the appealed claims. We submit with oonfidenoe that no
one, however skilled in the art, would he able to take the
Jones patent and from the instructions contained therein
produoe a reoorder having true outting edges and in that way
carry out the process of the appealed claims.
Even if the Examiner* s position were correot, and if
we admit that the Bell & Tainter patent of reoord may he
considered as supplementing the disclosure oontained in the
Jones patent, we still insist that the appealed claims are
not antioipated. In the first plaoe, a reoorder for making
a sinuous reoord groove is so totally different from a re¬
oorder for making an ordinary phonograph reoord groove that
a reference to a patent on a phonograph is not, in the na¬
ture of things, an anticipation of a gramophone reoorder.
However skilled a person might he in the making of phono¬
graph records, his knowledge of the art would not be suffi¬
ciently extensive as to enable him to proceed with certainty
in the making of sinuous reoord grooves. The Examiner does
not pretend, nor does anyone pretend, that the speoial pho¬
nograph reoorder of the Bell & Tainter patent is capable of
uso in the making of a gramophone reoord, and if the Bell &
Tainter patent is to be regarded as a reference at all, it
4
oan only bo to the extent of showing that out phonograph
reoordo wero well known. We insist, however, and urge, in
the second plaoe, that Bell & Tainter do not, in their pat¬
ent, describe even a out phonograph record in the Bense in
whioh the term is used in the appealed claims. Thus the
specification states (page 2 et sag. ) that the invention
"resides principally in the formation of the sinuous
record groove by oleanly cutting the material coinci¬
dent therewith, so as to thereby remove more or less
continuous shavings or ohips of the material, as dis¬
tinguished from the operations now performed, wherein
material is merely compressed or crowded to one side
or the other of the normal or medial line of the re¬
cording stylus."
With the Bell & Tainter patent (see figure 4) the recording
stylus is maintained truly perpendicular to the flat record¬
ing surface, so that the vibrations of the diaphragm merely
cause the recorder to engage to a greater or less depth in
the material, and as the reoording Burfaoe moves laterally
with rospect to the stylus, the material is merely removed
by a scraping operation. This is not a true cutting opera¬
tion. If, for instance, in a wood- turning lathe the out-
ting tool were held diametrically to the object, material
would be removed by a soraping operation, but the resulting
surfaoe would be obviously rough and the tool would be al¬
most sure to chatter. Edison recognized these defects in
Bell & Tainter' s suggestion, and therefore suggested (in his
patent Ho. 393967 of Deoember 4, 1888) a true cutting tool
maintained at an angle to the diameter of the record. In
that patent (see figure 1) Edison illustrates the Bell &
Tainter reoorder, and points out the objections to a sorap¬
ing notion. furthermore,, in the patent in question the Of-
fioe allowed Edison a broad olaim on -
"outting in the reoording surfaoe the reoord correspon¬
ding to the sound waves in oontradistinotion to the
formation of suoh sound reoords by a soraping notion."
In the present case the reoorder is maintained at an angle
S
to the reoording surface, so that a true outting operation
is performed in exaotly the same sense as in the production
of phonograph reoords, as suggested in Edison's previous
patent No. 393967 above referred to. Even, therefore, if
it he admitted that in the Jones patent the suggestion is
clearly apparent of following the ideas outlined by Bell &
Tainter, that patent is just as fully distinguished from the
present invention as was the invention of Edison's previous
patent distinguished from the Bell & Tainter patent. It
seems to us, however, that any speculations of this kind are
quite out of place in the consideration of this case, for
the reason that the Jones patent of itBelf is plainly insuf¬
ficient as an anticipation. It does not dearly describe
the formation of a sinuous reoord groove by a true outting
operation, it does not show or describe a outting recorder
for this purpose, and the reference in the patent to the use
"of a sound recording maohine in a well known manner" makes
it quite dear that Jones had in mind only the ordinary
gramophone needle, whose operation is fully distinguished
In his answer the Examiner also says that -
"the patent of Adams-Randall disdoses a description of
a cut lateral sound reoord formed by the vibration of
a stylus having knife edges. Attention is called in
this connection to this patentee's figures 43 and 44."
We submit that this statement of the Examiner is not well
founded, and we will show that although Adams-Randall does,
In fact, refer to "a stylus having knife edges", the refer-
Bnoe to that form of stylus is only made in connection with
the production of an Indented tinfoil reoord exaotly like
the original Edison phonograph. Of the many forms of de-
rices shown in thie Adams-Randall patent, the only one show¬
ing the sinuous groove or gramophonio devioe is to be found
In figures 43 and 44. This device is described on page 8,
where the reoorder in referred to as a "rod 141". A "rod"
is certainly not a cutting recorder, hut in the ordinary ac¬
ceptation of the term is nothing more than a needle. Not
a word is to he found in this patent referring to "a out
lateral sound record", so that in this statement the Exami¬
ner is plainly inoorreot. The only reference in the patent
to the use of a reoorder "having knife edges" 1b found on
page 9 (line 46 et seq. ) as follows:
"I have found that as good, if not better, results
are obtained in reproducing sounds from reoords, by
using the reverse side of the record, in lieu of the
side upon whioh the reoord is made, the indentations
or lines of the reoord seemingly being more sharply
defined and distinot, and the sounds reproduced there¬
from louder and more natural. Especially is this true
if a flat, thin, sharp recording pen or style having a
knife edge and much more width than thiokneBS - a
miniature chisel - is employed, using a thin reversi¬
ble recording material, such as thin, fine blotting pa¬
per, or very thin goldleaf, or tinfoil, or other simi¬
lar yielding tenaoious material arranged upon a grooved
tablet carrier. "
It 1b perfectly clear what this meanB, and the reference was
intended only to be made to the ordinary Edison tinfoil pho¬
nograph. As a matter of fact, with the old tinfoil phono¬
graph the reoorder was chisellike, so that in this respeot
there Is nothing new in the patentee's suggestion. While
it might be possible to seoure reproductions from the re¬
verse side of an indented phonograph! o reoord made in a me¬
tallic foil sinoe such reoords would present merely projec¬
tions or protuberances with which a reproducer oould effec¬
tively engage, that would not be readily possible with a
sinuous groove record, for the reason that in reverse, Buoh
a record would present a zigzag ridge whioh oould not be ef¬
fectively engaged by a reproducer.
So far as the first four olaims are concerned there¬
fore, we submit that neither J ones nor Adams-Randall dis¬
closes a prooesB of making a gramophone reoord by cleanly
outting in recording material a Binuous reoord groove, nor
7
does either of said patents give a suffioient basis to en¬
able anyone shilled in the art to carry that process into
effect • Furthermore, neither of these references illus¬
trates nor describes a suitable reoorder for making these
reoord grooves, and we believe that invention would unques¬
tionably be required if the attempt wore made to oarry out
the prooesB of the appealed olaims in connection with the
suggestion of either of the previous patentees. We regard
the first four olaims, therefore, as being allowable.
Concerning the 5th and 6th olaims, it 1b to be noted
that each is limited to the cutting of a sinuous reoord
groove, so that in this respect alone we believe the olaims
are fully distinguished from the references of reoord. How¬
ever, so far as the additional limitation in these claims
to the formation of a preliminary groove is oonoerned, we
think the patents to Berliner and to Heysinger of reoord are
entirely insufficient.
Berliner's idea (patent 689350) was to make a tablet
whioh should be capable of receiving a reoord in an ordinary
gramophone. As is well known, these gramophones are used
for reproduction solely, and are not provided with indepen¬
dent feed mechanism, but the feed of the reproducer is ef¬
fected by the reoord itself. In order that suoh a gramo¬
phone might be used for making reoords, Berliner suggests
the idea of first making the tablet with a spiral groove
formed therein, and selling these tablets to the publio.
When a reoord is to be made therefore, all that a gramophone
user has to do is to put one of these speoially prepared tab¬
lets in his maohine and talk into it, the preliminarily form¬
ed groove serving solely to guide the reproducer, whioh in
this oase becomes the reoorder. So far as we know, this
idea has never been put in praotioe. Berliner's idea 1b
8
essentially different from appellant's, inasmuoh as the
smooth groove is completely formed before any of the record
groove is made, whereas with appellant's invention the smooth
groove is formed immediately in advance of the record groove.
Furthermore, with the Berliner scheme the smooth groove is
always deeper than the record groove, which seems to us
would result in the production of a poor reoord and prevent
aocurate reproduction therefrom, since extraneous sounds
would certainly he produced by the reproducer vibrating back
and forth over the smooth groove in the bottom of the reoord
groove (see figure 2). Furthermore, there seems to be no¬
thing to prevent the reproducer from engaging the smooth
groove and not vibrating at all. If, on the other hand,
Berliner attempted to cut the reoord groove deeper than the
smooth groove, then the smooth groove would not guide the
reproducer or recorder, and hence the proper feed of the
latter would be prevented. Appellant's idea is one that
possesses speoial utility in the speoifio connection in
which it is olaimed, as it has nothing whatever to do with
the feed of the reoorder, but relates solely to improving
the operation of the latter by reduoing the work whioh the
reoorder has to perform.
So far as the patent to Heysinger (No. 440155) iB
concerned, we call attention to the faot that Heysinger' s
idea was simply to use a plow M whioh would out a square
groove in the recording material, in the bottom of whioh
groove the recording stylus N would form an indented reoord.
The sole purpose of the groove was to guide the reproducer.
Obviously Buoh a groove would not reduce in any way the work
performed by the recorder-
So far as the British patent to Ranson (No. 7625 of
1889) is concerned, that reference was not oited during the
9
proseoution of the oase and le referred to for the first
time in the Examiner's answer. We have not been able to
examine this patent and therefore oannot refer to it herein.
Rather than delay the oaBa hy haying the application return¬
ed to the Examiner for the purpose of haying this referenoe
properly oited, we will proceed with the appeal notwith¬
standing the new referenoe, hut may have to request the
Examiners in Chief to permit us to file an additional brief
on the subjeot of the Ranson referenoe, if that is neoes-
sary, or to recommend possible changes in the last two claim
to distinguish their terms therefrom. If, however, the Ran-
son patent is no closer than the Borliner and Heysinger
references, we see no reason why the last two olaims are
not allowable.
Upon the whole case, we submit that the Examiner's
deoision should be reversed.
Respectfully submitted.
Attorneys for Appellant.
Sew York, January 31, 1903.
n. Patent Office, feb . /3
1903,
■^K
Before the £xaainero-in-yhicf, on Appeal, W
Applic ation of Thomas A. Edison for a patent for an 'im¬
provement in Processes of Making Eouna: Records, filed .Tune 4, 1902.
Serial no. 110, 159. >
Messrs. Dyer, Edmonds & Dyer for appellant.
The claims appealed are:
1. The process of making a graphic record representative of
sounds, which consists in engaging a cutting tool with a
. record surface, in subjecting the cutting tool to the in¬
fluence of sound waves, whereby it will be caused to he vi¬
brated in a plane parallel to and within said surface, • and
in effecting a relative movement of the surface with re¬
spect to sain cutting tool, whereby a sinuous record groove
•will he cleanly cut in said surface j&nd the material will
be completely removed by the cutting tool in the line of
its path, substantially a3 and for the purpose net forth.
2. The process of making a graphic record, ronrosentative of
sounds, which consists in engaging a cutting tool n art tal¬
ly 'within but not through a record surface, in subjecting
the cutting tool to the influence of sound waves, whereby
it will be caused to be vibrated in a plane parallel to and
within said surface, and in effecting a relative movement
of the surfaco with respect to said cutting tool, whereby
a sinuous record groove will be cleanly cut in said sur¬
face am. the material will be completely removed by the
cutting tool in the line of its path, substantially as and
for the purposes sot forth.
3. The process of making a graphic record representative of
sounds, "which consists in cleanly cutting in a waxlike
blank a sinuous sound wave, substantially as set forth.
The process of making a graphic record representative of
sounds, which consists in cleanly cutting in a waxlike
blank a sinuous sound wave, presenting a curved cross-sec¬
tion and of uniform depth and width throughout, substan¬
tially as set forth. . «
The process of making a graphic record representative of
sounds, consisting in cutting a groove in a blank and in
cutting in line with said groove a deeper sinuous record ,
groove, substantially as set forth.
The process of malting a graphic record representative of
bounds, which consists in engaging a grooving tool with¬
in a recording surface, in engaging a recording stylus with
-said surface in line v/ith suiu grooving tool but to a great -
,,er dej)th and width than said tool, in subjecting the record
ing stylus to the effect of sound wavoB, whereby it will
be' vibrated in a plane parallel to the record surface, and
in effecting a relative movement of said surface with re¬
spect to sale grooving tool and recording stylus, whereby
the grooving tool will cut a shallow and "narrow groove in
said surface in advance of the recording stylus, substan¬
tially as set forth.
The references are patents to
Boll & Tainter, Hay 4, 10136, Ho. 341, 214;
lleysiiifrer, 3Tov. 11, 1000, Ho. 440, 153 ;
Jones, Dec. 10, 1001, Ho. 608, 7150;
Berliner, Dec. 17, 1901, Ho. 609, 350;
British patent Do. 1058 of 1880 to Adams -Randall.
Claims 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this application are rejected by
the Examiner mainly for the reason that, as he holds, they are antic¬
ipated by the patent to Jones. ’
This Jones patent states, after describing the material
out of which his disc or tablet is constructed:
"Upon the surface of this tablet I then form by the use
of a sound-recording machine in a well-known manner a spi¬
ral groove of practically uniform depth that contains lat¬
eral sinuosities or irregularities corresponding to or
representing the sound-waves recorded. The cutti ng or en¬
graving of a re cord-Groove by the lateral movement oF the
stylus differs from the operation of the well-known graph-
ophone system in that the resistance offered the stylus of
a graphophono in. cutting downward to produce the vertical
irregularities characteristic of that system varies prac¬
tically as the cube of the length of the vibrations of the
diaphragm and stylus, •.vherea.s in producing my original rec¬
ords the resistance encountered by my recording stylus is
exactly equal to the length of the vibrations. On account
cf this difference in principle I jun enabled to obtain
more accurate, and therefore better, records of the origi¬
nal rounds. The original record so formed is an exact copy
of the record to be used for reproducing."
The Examiner holds that this is a sufficient description
to anticipate the applicant’s process.'
It is, hov/ever, contended for the applicant that this Jones
patent does not contain a sufficient description to enable any one
skillod in thd art to cleanly cut a sinuous record groove such as is
effected, by this; use of the applicant’ s; apparatus.
The Examiner contends that there is a sufficient disclos¬
ure in the prior art in the Bell & Taint or patent, Ho. 341, 214, grant¬
ed May 4, 1886, and rt'i.th the Examiner’s conclusion we agree. That
patent shows i in Rigs. 5 and 6 a stylus' which is described (p. 3, line
67 , ) as "preferably f ormedof a round wire by turning the end coni-
■cal ancl rounding the extremity, and then grinding off one
' 3iiie to the axis of the wire. This leaves sharp cuttina-edg-
/ es on "both sides of the tapering point. These edges remove
the material in chips or shavings, like a plane on turning
tool. It is not essential to give this form to the style.
Any form which will remove the material and not simply
displace it will answer." ’
It is further statod(p. 6, lineB 70-79):
"The term ’cutting’ is herein employed to indicate an ac¬
tion in which the material is removed in chips, shuvings,
or other small pieces- as in engraving, turning, and the
like- ant not simply displaced.
The displacement of the material is not only a dif¬
ferent operation from the cutting contemplated by this in¬
vention, but is not calculated to accomplish the objects
for which cutting or graving is employed."
Y/e see no reason why the tool illustrated in ?igs. 5 and
6 of this patent to Beil & Tainter is not auapteu as it stands to per¬
form a cutting operation such as is olTected by the applicant's tool.
Koreover, the patentee Jones undoubtedly meant when he said "cutting
or engraving", cutting in the sense in which the applicant uses that
term. In the consideration of the application record of the Jones
patent in the argument filed August 13, 1900, a clear’ distinction was
drawn by the attorney for Jones between cutting and indenting. In re¬
ferring to a prior patent the attorney for Jones stated:
"3'rom tiie fact that this stylus £ is. shown as conical
ancl tapering to a point, it would appear that its true mode,
of action is to scratch — without removing the material
cleanly as in a true cutting mperation. So that, in any
event, applicant's cutting or engraving method is different
from either the alleged 'Indenting* or the actual scratch¬
ing method of the patentees*"
It is tiius clear that Jones^ ana his counsel were referring
to a cutting operation by which the material was cleanly relieved,
which it appears to us is just the character of operation that is ef¬
fected by the applicant's tool* He manifestly did not refer in his
patent when he used the term "cutting or engraving" to any such de¬
vice as the Berliner recording needle for tracing a record directly
in a wax surface.
It is, however, insisted on behalf of the applicant that
the Bell & Tainter patent while it describes cleanly cutting the ma¬
terial, does not in fact describe a true cutting operation, but that
it is really a scraping operation, ana; our attention is called to a p
-patent to Edison in which Edison recognizes the defects in the Bell &
Tainter apparatus and describes a true -cutting tool which was main-
tained in operative position at an angle to the diameter of the rec¬
ord* This contention appears to have been conceded by' the Office,
although it does not appear from the record of .this Edison patent
what were the reasons for such concession, and Edison was allowed a
broad claim on "cutting in the. recording-surface ' the«.record < correspond¬
ing to the soimd-v/aves in contradistinction to the formation of such
sound-records by a scraping action."
This Edison patent was granted December 4, 1888, and was
therefore a part of the art prior to the taking out of the Jones pat¬
ent, so that any one attempting to carry out the process of the Jones
patent had the option of using ■ as well known sound -recording devices
either the tool shown in the Bell & fainter patent or the tool shown
in the Edison patent. If the tool of the Bell & fainter patent with
its sharp cutting edges on both sides of the tapering point was not
a true cutting tool, Edison's patent indicated that the way to make
this tool a true cutting tool was to give it the necessary inclina¬
tion.
There was, therefore, known in the ar*t, or obviously sug¬
gested thereby, an inclined cutting tool having sharp cutting edges on
both sides, these sharp cutting edges extending entirely around the
end of the tool. Y/ith this known state of the art, we fail to see
how any one coulu have any difficulty in carrying out the process
described by Jones, or in so doing how. he coulu fail to carry out the
process described by the applicant in this case.
In the Jones patent "a record-groove of appreciable and
practically uniform depth and having lateral undulations corresponding
to the sound-waves" (p. 2, lines 94-97) was produced by the use of a
cutting tool and the process by which it was made, as described in
the patent, seems to us a clear anticipation of these claims. The
record of the Jone3 patent shows that actual records made by the pro¬
cess of that patent were submitted to the Examiner, and it was on
the strength of the improved results obtained by this record that the
patent was allowed, so that it would appear that the patent is not a
mere paper parent , I'bdF 'oiie" Uh1 which ap; actually useful and. now result i
had been produced. ■ -
The Examiner also relies upon the British patent to Adams-
Randall. Of this patent it is sufficient to say that it does not dis¬
close the invention claimed.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected: on the patents to Berliner and
Heysinger, and on a British patent Ho. .7625 of 1889. The British
patent was not cited until , the appeal was taken and does not, in any
event, contain a sufficient disclosure, of the process of claims 5
and 6. All that the patent states is that
"It is a convenience sometimes to cut a groove in the cylin¬
der before the record is 'made. In this case after the
groove is cut the record can be actually cut or else only
indented in the wax which may be made of two degrees of
hardness the harder wax being on the surface."
It is a convenience to attach the cutter for cutting the
groove on to the framework carrying the recording dia¬
phragm." (p. 5, lines 16-21).
The patent to Heysinger need not be considered since ap-
jjarently the indenting tools make their record in the bottom of a
previously formed groove.
The patent to Berliner, however, describes a process in which
a' parallel sided groove is made in the sound record, and on this pre¬
liminary groove is superimposed a laterally undulating sound record
groove. This patent states (p. 2, lines 37-44):
"The preliminary groove seems to have the function of
guiding the record-stylus and, v/hat is more important, of
lessening the work requkred, to be done by the recording
styluB in shaping or indenting the material of the record-
plate, which would otherwise have to be shaped or indent¬
ed by the recording-3 tylus.f
The patent further states that (p. 2, lines 29-30):
"A close inspection of the finished record reveals both
grooves."
Here is a clear disclosure of the idea that a better rec¬
ord may be obtained by having a preliminary groove so that the re¬
cording tool will not have so much work to do.
Vie are of the opinion that the' application to a record
groove of the sinuous type shown in the Jones patent of this prelimina¬
ry groove described by Berliner is one' clearly not requiring inven¬
tion. All that was required was to shape the tools to cut the grooves
in a manner corresponding to the shape of the final recording tool.
Vie do not find in the process claimed any new idea of pro's,
cedure or any new mode of> operation. ■
The ueciglon of the Examiner is accordingly affirmed
Examinors-in-Chlef
0 •' W Q \
€3
LAW OFFICES"
DYER, EDMONDS & DYER.
patents aito patent Causes.
=®E Petition.
c t,3c Commissioner of Fatents :
YOUR petitioner, THOMAS A. BDISOH, a oitizen of the tfnitod
Q, stat,B* **«*idins at XleweUyn Park, Orange, in the County of Boso*
and State of Hew Jersey, whose post offlee address Is Orange, How
Jersey,
PRAYS THAT LETTERS PATENT MAY BE GRANTED. TO HIM FOR THE XMPR0VSMHHT3
IH SOTJBD RECORDS
... SET FORTH ,N THE ANNEXEO SPECIFICATION; AND HE HEREBY APPOINTS DYER. EDMONDS
' AND DVER- REGISTRATION NO. 2B8B (A FIRM COMPOSED OF RICHARD N. DYER, SAMUEL
O. EDMONDS AND FRANK L. DYER). OF NO. 31 NASSAU STREET. NEW YORK CITY, HIS
ATTORNEYS, WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION AND REVOCATION, TO PROSECUTE
Q THIS APPLICATION, to make ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THEREIN, TO RECEIVE
THE PATENT, AND TO TRANSACT ALL BUSINESS IN THE PATENT OFFICE CONNECTED
THEREWITH. ,
SPECIPICATIOH.
TO TBKOM IT MAY COHCERN: .
Bo it known that I, THOMAS A. EDISOH, a oitizen of
the United States, residing at Llewellyn Park, Orange, in
the County of Base* and State of Hew Jersey, have invented,
certain new and useful IMPROVEMENTS HI SOUND RECORDS (ease
Ho. 107S), of which the following is a description.
Hy invention relates to improvements in sound
reoords of the type in which the record groove is sinuous
and is of substantially uniform depth and width, as distin¬
guished from a phonographlo reeord wherein these dimensions
are not uniform. Sound reoords of the kind to whioh my
present invention relates are relatively simple in Character
and the matter of duplicating them does not present the dif¬
ficulties of duplicating phonographlo records.
Prior to my invention, in the making of sound
reoords in a disk blank, for example, in the form of a
sinuous groove of substantially uniform depth and width, a
suitable plate or foundation was covered with a thin layer
or film of waxlike material whioh was engaged by a needle-
like recording stylus oonneoted to the diaphragm, the ar¬
rangement being suoh that ' in the absence of vibrations the
stylus removed the film of waxlike material to its full
depth to disclose the foundation and in the form of a spiral
groove of uniform width. By vibrating the diaphragm, the
said groove was caused to partake of sinuosities and undula¬
tions corresponding graphically to the sound waves. By
suitable etching, eleotroplating, photographic ipfc allied
processes a matrix was secured from the master so formed
and used for the production of duplicates by various method: .
1
The processes used prior to my invention for the making of
these records were objectionable, beoause the reoords pro¬
duced were not aoourately representative of the Bound vibra¬
tions, firBt, beoause the recording stylus, in order that
it may oertainly out through the depth of the waxlike mate¬
rial, must be engaged with considerable friction against the
foundation on whioh the wax is oarried, thereby offering un¬
necessary resistance to the vibration of the stylus, and
second, beoause the Btylus, being unprovided with cutting
edges, in its vibrations merely displaced or compressed the
like material in the formation of a groove instead of cleanly
cutting it.
In an application for Letters Patent filed November
8th 1901, Serial No. 81,534, of whioh the present oase is o
division, I describe a suitable apparatus for making these
reoords by the aotion of a recording stylus having a true
outting edge, the latter being preferably formed on the arc
of a circle; and I desoribe also in said application the
employment of a grooving tool preceding the recorder and by-
means of whioh the material in advance of the recorder will
be partly removed to thereby impose upon the reoorder the
necessity of removing the minimum amount of material in
foraing the record groove. My improved sound record is
formed by means of an apparatus of this genus.
Broadly stated, my present invention relates to a
new commercial artiele of manufacture, to wit, an original
record surface containing a oleanly out sinuous spiral
record groove, presenting preferably in oross-seotion the
aro of a circle, and which is aoourately representative of
the original sounds, and which record can be used for direol
reproduction or as a master from' whioh a matrix can be form,
ed for producing duplicates. My improved record in its
preferred form 1b also distinguished from reoords as hereto¬
fore made with sinuous record grooves, in being composed of
a suitable waxlike material with the groove cleanly out
therein and extending through only a portion of its depth
instead of being traoed through the entire thickness of a
waxlike film as with the prior processes. When my inprovod
record is formed in an apparatus employing a grooving tool
cutting in advanoe of the reoorder, my improved record is
further distinguished from records as heretofore made with
sinuous record grooves inasmuch as the record groove will
be provided with a continuation in the form of a groove of
less depth than width and of a length in advance of the
record groove depending obviously upon the distance between
the grooving tool and the reoorder in the recording apparatw.
In order that the invention may be better understood
attention is directed to tho accompanying drawings forming
part of this specification, and in which figure 1 is a plan
view of my improved record} figure 2 an enlarged seotional
view illustrating the formation of the raoord by the con¬
joint aotion of a grooving tool and a cutting recording sty¬
lus; figure 3 a plan view on an enlarged scale showing tho
end portion of the reoord groove with the extension there¬
from formed by the grooving tool; figure 4 a seotion on tho
line 4—4 of figure 3; and figure 8 a seotion on the lino
5—5 of figure 3.
In all of the above views corresponding parts are
represented by the same numerals of reference.
The reoord is preferably in the form of a disk 1
made conveniently of the usual phonographic waxlike mate¬
rial. Tho reoord groove 2 la formed in the recording sur¬
face of the blank, and when the latter is disklike this
groove Is in the form of a sinuous spiral, as shown. The
3
I record groove ia formed by the cutting aotion of a stylus 3
provided with a true outting edge 4 engaging the bottom and
sides of the groove. This outting edge is preferably form¬
ed on the arc of a oirele, so that the sinuous reoord groove
will be curved, as shown in figure 5. The recording appa¬
ratus preferably contemplates a grooving tool 5, made like
an ordinary phonographic recorder, and whioh precedes the
recording stylus to cut a spiral groove 6 in the material
in advance of the reoord groove 2 but of less depth and
width than the latter, as shown in figures 3 and 4. Ob-
biously when this grooving tool is employed, the resulting
reeord will be characterized by having a short section of
the groove 6 extending as a continuation at the end of the
reeord groove 2, as shown in figure 3. The record so fora¬
ed may be engaged directly by a reproducing device, of the
type described and claimed in my application for litters
Patent filed November 8th 1901, Serial No. 81,535, or it
may be used as a master from which a matrix can be obtained
in any suitable way and duplicates seoured therefrom.
Having now described my invention, what I claim as
new therein and desire to secure by letters Patent is as
follows:
1. As an article of manufacture, a sound reoord
comprising a record surface carrying a sinuous reoord groove
of substantially uniform width and depth, said groove being
cleanly and smoothly cut within the surface, substantially
as set forth.
2. As an article of manufacture, a sound reeord
[comprising a reoord surface carrying a sinuous record groove
P* substantially uniform width and depth, said groove being
cleanly and smoothly cut within the surface and in its cross-
section presenting an arc of a eirole throughout its length,]
substantially as set forth.
3. As. an article of manufacture , a sound record
the surface of mioh carries a sinuous record groove of less]
depth than the thiotoess of said record, substantially as
set forth.
A'. As an article of manufacture, a sound record
comprising a disk of recording material carrying a sinuous
spiral record groove of substantially uniform width and
depth, said groove being cleanly and smoothly cut within
the recording surface, substantially as set forth.
^ S'. As an article of manufacture, a sound record
comprising a disk of recording material carrying a sinuous
spiral record groove of substantially uniform width and
depth, said groove being cleanly and smoothly cut within the
recording aurfaoe and in its oross-seotion presenting an aro
of a oirole throughout its length, substantially as set forth,
6. A's an article of manufacture, V disk of waxlike
[material the surface of which carries a sinu\us record grow >
of less depth thkn the thickness of said diBk^substantially
as set forth. \
jf As an article of manufacture, a sound record
comprising a record surface carrying a sinuous record groove|
of substantially uniforA width and depth, and a grooved con¬
tinuation of said record groove of less depth and width than]
the latter, substantially V set forth.
S. As an art i ole of manufacture, a sound record
comprising a reoord surface oarrying a slnuouB record groove]
of substantially uniform width and depth, said groove being
cleanly and smoothly out within the surface, and a continua¬
tion at the end of said record groove of less depth and
width than the same, substantially as set forth.
WITNESSED
*
THIS SPECIFICATION SIGNEO AND
0
Oath.
State of
Counts of
THOMAS A, HDISOK, the above-named
PETITIONER, BEING DULY SWORN, DEPOSES AND SAYS THAT HE IS A OltiZfclS
OF THE tfnitod States, and a resident of Dlewellyn Park, Orange,
in the County of Essex and State of New Jersey;
THAT HE VERILY BELIEVES HIMSELF TO BE THE ORIGINAL, FIRST AND SOLE INVENTOR
OF the IMPROVMENTS IN BOUND RECORDS
DESCRIBED AND CLAIMED IN THE ANNEXED SPECIFICATION; THAT HE DOES NOT
KNOW AND DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THE SAME WAS EVER KNOWN OR USED BEFORE
HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF; OR PATENTED OR DESCRIBED IN ANY
PRINTED PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY
BEFORE HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF, OR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR
TO THIS APPLICATION; OR IN PUBLIC USE OR ON SALE IN THE UNITED STATES FOR
MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THIS APPLICATION, AND THAT NO APPLICATION
FOR FOREIGN PATENT HAS BEEN FILED BY HIM OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OR
ASSIGNS IN ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY.
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 1S0 '
notarypuIlicV
; (siCt^Lfi- / O 7 3 .
Department of the Interior,
Washington, D. C.,
r„v '
SERIES OF 1900.
noJ10j.1A:P
A-
% 1
: _ lOOlr' |
'IT
f
I have to acknowledge the receipt of the petition, specification, oath, and s
o
drawing of your alleged Improvement in _ J
_ _ _ a) <-&(.- AA £, c<-^- _ _ f
3 with Fifteen Dollars as the first fee payable thereon. |
| The papers are duly filed, and your application for a patent will he taken 1
» up for examination in its order _ _ _ 1
g You will he duly advised of the examination.
| ' Very respectfully,
J M. £
Commissioner of Patents .
31- ft 7
—In order to constitute an application fori
Irowings ( wliero tho nature of tin
plication is considered as complet., _
n duo form by tlio inventor or applicant.
=j=gfA^t-
• a patent, tlio inventor is by Inw required to furnish l/np2tit
rails of drawings) nnd to pny tlio required fee.
id to pay tlio required feo- • '
' id thereon, until nil its parts, as lioro spcciUcd, aro
United States Patent Office, , : •
WASHINGTON, D. C.p July 3,1902*1 ■, ' ’
Thomas A* Edison,
cars Dyer, Edmonds & Dyer,
#31 Nassau Street,
New yorJc,N.y.
Please find below a communication from the EXAMINER in charge of your application,
for Sound-Records, filed Juno 4,1908, serial number 110,160.
R J, .
nr s. mi OFFICEJ
I JUL 8 1902 1
| mailed..!
Claims 1 to 6 Inclusive, are rejected for i»nt of
patontablo novelty In view of the patont of Jonas, December 10,
1901, #688,739, . (Graphophone Tablet a, Duplicating Devices) and
Adams-Randal 1* a English Patont #1058 of 1889, Pigs. 42 and 44,
: (Graphophones) .
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected for want of patentable
invention in view of the patent of Heysinger, November 11,1890,
#440 , 16 5, ( Graphophone s) .
Case No, Paper No,./.
l THOMAS A. EDISON
jj IMPROVEMENTS IN SOUND RECORDS j
!j FILED JUNE 4, 1902
SERIAL NO. 110,160
'i ROOM NO. 219.
: HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS,
; Sir:
We amend the above entitled application by erasing
the third and sixth claims and by renumbering the remaining
claims accordingly. This amendment is made in view of pat¬
ent to Jones, wherein the record groove is apparently of less
thickness than the record tablet.
We respectfully ask, however, that the remaining '
claims may be reconsidered, as we fail to find that they are
: adequately anticipated by the references. The first and j
: third claims, as now numbered, are limited to a sound record
j having a sinuous record' groove “cleanly and smoothly out
i| within the surface*, and the seoond and fourth claims are
jj .
|j additionally limited to the making of the record groove with
jj a cross seotion “presenting an aro of a oircle throughout
| its length".
So far as the British patent to Adams-Randall is
i| concerned, we fail to find therein any disclosure which even
approximates applicant's invention. In fact, the only ref¬
erence in the patent to a record having a sinuous groove is
in connection with the description of figures 43 and 44, on
pages 8 and 9, wherein the most general reference is made to
Case No,.,Z|£rPaper
“a reoording or reproducing t-raoer or traveller0 . So far
as we can find, the patent nowhere states that a sinuous
grooved record is made by a clean and smooth cut, nor does
the patent describe any recorder for the purpose having cut-
: ting edges. So far as the drawings are concerned, they are j
obviously on too small a soale to supply any def icier oy in the
specification. Apparently, the tracer or traveller in
: question is simply a piece of wire, without any pains being j
taken to form it with cutting edges.
So far as the patent to Jones is concerned, it is \
true that the specification refers to the “cutting or engrav-j
ing of a record groove. by the lateral movement of the stylus" ■
but this language must be road in connection with the whole i
of the description, from which it appears that so far as the j
: formation of the record groove is concerned, Jones claimed j
absolutely no novelty therein. In fact, he says that he |
; forms "by the use of a sound recording machine in a well known
;; manner a spiral groove of practically uniform depth". Now,
the "well known manner* of forming these grooves at the date
i of Jones' application was by means of a needle-like recorder,
j which merely displaced, compressed or orowded the material
ij to one side or the other of its medial line. '.This operation
is evidently that whioh Jones refers to as “cutting or engrav¬
ing". Apparently, Jones did not consider the matter minutely
enough to distinguish between a true cutting action and a mere
tracing operation. That we are correct in our surmise is,
we think, fully substantiated by Jones' drawing, in v/hloh, in
figure 1, he shows very clearly a needle-like reoordor. At
any rate, the Jones patent iis not a full and clear disolosure
2. Case No, Paper
I i\
of a true cutting recorder, nor does it fully and completely
disolose the method of making a record with a cleanly out
sinuous reoord groove-.
In this connection, the Examiner will no doubt
recall that in the original patent to Bell & fainter, No. ' j
341,214, reference was made to “engraving or cutting the j
record" and the claims referred throughout to the cutting of
the reoord and the employment of a cutting style. Yet Edi¬
son, in his patent No. 393,967, distinguished between such a
; cutting or engraving operation as described by Bell & Tainter
and was allowed a broad claim on the cutting of a record “in
contradistinction to the formation of suoh sound records by
a soraping notion.0 We submit that in the present case the |
Jones patent is not any more analogous to. Edison's present j
invention than was the Bell & Tainter patent analagouB to the
invention of Edison's previous patent. We submit, therefore,
that the Jones patent should be withdrawn as being insuffi¬
cient. All that we have said concerning the Jones patent
is outside of the argument which can be especially directed
to the second and fourth claims, which are specifically lim-
j; ited to the formation of a reoord groove of special oross
, section. The JoneB patent is certainly inadequate as a ref-
ji erence to these claims.
:j ^ifth and sixth olaims are not, in our opinion,
|j met fcy thQ patent to Heysinger of record. In the first
| place, the claims are limited to a sinuous, record groove,
j| whereas with the Heysinger patent the groove is not sinuous.
|| The claims are limited to a groove of uniform width and depth,
I jihereas with the reference the groove is of varying depth.
3. Case No...Zi30Paper No . *£....
1
The claims are furthermore limited to a grooved continuation
of the record groove, of less width than the latter, Whereas
with the reference the continuation of the record groove is
of greater width than the same. Finally, the sixth claim
is limited to a cleanly cut record groove, whereas with the
reference the record groove is merely indented, as in the
old tinfoil phonograph.
We hope, in view of these considerations, that the
claims may be allowed.
Very respectfully,
Attorneys for Edison.'
£ <>, (2M^ .
. , _ , , , Commissioner of Patents.
This applioation has been duly reconsidered In viow
of the amendment filed the 7th. inst*
The patents of Jones and Adarae-Randall both disclose
sinuous rooord grooves in a gramophone tablet said sinuous grooves
being described in both patents as "out* in the rooord material.
. These grooves are of a uniform depth and width as is obvious*
Apparently the only difference between applicant* s tablet as an ,
article and those made in accordance with the dlsolosed methods .
of the patentees resides in the fact that in applicant's record
groove the record presents in cross seatlon an arc of a. circle
whereas in the other structures the rooord groove may not be of
this shape. Whether the record groove is arc shaped in oross
section or not seems to be immaterial in a patent* Is ssnss and
not patentable over one that is angular in oross ssetioa or one
that dobs not oonform truly to the are shape*
The olalms rejected in the last offloial action are rejected
in view of the patents of Jones, Adams-pandall and “orliner Deo.
17, 1901, No. 689350 in Oraphophonss-T ablets.
Case No.. Paper No,,
ROOK NO. P.19.
THOMAS A. HD ISON
SOUND REOOHDS
PILED .TUNE 4, 1902
SERIAL NO. 110,160
HON. OCMISSIONER OH PATENTS,
SIR:
We amend the above -entitle A application by
erasing the fifth claim and by renumbering claim 6. We have
erased the fifth (original seventh) daim, for the reason
that aa drawn it was broad enough, to cover a record made
with a noodle! lice reoordor, end therefore perhaps not fully
distinguished from the Berliner patent. All the other
olaira are specifically limited to a record employing a sin¬
uous groove cleanly out in the recording material.
We note that in rejecting the claims the Examiner
exp reuses the view that the patents to .Tones and to Adama-
Randall disclose the suggestion of a cut sinuous -groove
record. We deny the correctness of the Examiner's premise,
and therefore oaunot accept his conclusion. As we pointed
out in our last argument, the .Tones patent must bo considered
in its entirety. The isolated reference in the Jones pat¬
ent to "cutting or engraving" cannot be taken alone, but
must be Interpreted in the light of the complete disclosure.
When, therefore, Jones states that his reoord is made "in a
well-known manner", and ninoe the common and ordinary mode
of making such reoords was, at the date of the Jones patent,
by means of a needlelike recorder, the expression "cutting
or engraving" must be held to be descriptive of the notion
of a needlelike recorder. It certainly cannot be maintained
that where a patentee states that his record is made "in a
’cutting or engraving".
Case No../^„..Pa[)er No„^t!
|well -known manner", and then ref ere to
that this constitutes m adequate anticipation of a raoord
made for the first time by means of a reoorder having true
cutting edges. As we before pointed out, the expression
"cutting or engraving" in this very art has been used as
synonymous with a scraping action,, snd has been clearly dis¬
tinguished in the Patent Office from a cutting action. In
fact, as we before Baid, although a prior patent had speci¬
fically referred to "cutting or engraving", yet the Office
granted a subsequent patent on a true cutting aotion. If
the .ToneB patent does not show a reoorder oapable of perform¬
ing a true cutting operation, then we submit any general
reference to "cutting or engraving"oaimot be regarded as an
adequate disclosure of applicant's invention.
So far as the patont to Adana -Randall is. concerned,
we have pointed out in applicant's companion case. Serial
Ho. 110, 159, that this patent is entirely insufficient, as a
disclosure of the invention. We have shown that Adams-
Randall sought to improve only the original tin-foil phono¬
graph, and in no instance employed a cutting tool capable
of cleanly cutting a sinuous groove.
We hope, therefore, that upon reconsideration the
olaims will be allowed.
Respdotfully,
IHOMAS A. EDISON,
By _ _
His Attorneys.
Hew York, August 88, 1908.
-8-
Case No, Paper No,.
United States Patent Office,
Th»"“ *• U. S. PATENT OFFICE,
SEP 10 1902 <^T
• »«Tort,,E.Y. hailed,;; ,!Sf
Please finel below a communication from the EXAMINER in charge of your aypiimf^hx
for Sound-Record a, filed June 4, 1908, aerial number 110,160.
MAIL ED4
This action is in response to the amendment filed the
89th ult.
Claims 1, 8, S and 4 are rejected again in view of the
patents of' Jones, Adams -Randall and for instance, patent of
Edison, June 86, 1900 ,#668,456, Souttd Boxes, Oraphophones, which
Shows the sound groove cur.vedwln'cross eootion.' From ah inspec-.
tion of the file in. tho Jones patent, it seems dear that the
expression "out or engraved* in said patent means cut out or
clehnly out, Just as the word *out* has such moaning in appli¬
cant's application.
Claim 6 is rejected for want of invention, in view of
the patent Of Berliner cited, and in view of the patent of
Vassenloh,!Tov. 11,1890 , #440,155 ,Oraphophone a.
Cate !'iO../s^;..Paper No,„s>1C..t;
THOMAS A. EDISON
sound RECORDS
PILED JUNE 4, 1902
SBRIATj NO. 110,160
ROOM NO. 219
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OR PATENTS,
SIR : -
. Reconsideration of claims 1 to 4 is
respectfully requested. We have already given our views
as to the Jones and Adams-Randall patents, and have stated
the grounds for our opinion that these references are en¬
tirely insufficient. In applicant's companion case on the
prooess for making the improved sound reoords, we have today-
submitted an argument pointing out that the history of the
Jones application throws no additional light on the patent
as a reference. Jones nowhere, in his patent, or in his
application, or in the arguments filed before the Patent
Offioe, states that he makes a sinuous grooved reoord by a
true cutting operation. Even if he did say in his patent
that suoh an operation was performed by him, the patent
would still be insufficient because a vague suggestion of
this kind would oertainly not enable those skilled in the
art to oarry it out.. Moreover, the statement in the patent
that the Jones record is made "in a well known manner" nega¬
tives the Examiner's assumption that it is made by a outting
operation, whioh would not be a well known manner. So far
as the 2nd and 4th claims are concerned, we do not Bee how
the new reference to Edison has any bearing, since with that
patent the reoord is vertically irregular, and is therefore
not a groove of substantially uniform width and depth with a
curved oross-Bection.
Case No, ,/feC. Paper No,.
i
Reconsideration of the 5th claim iB also requested,
and our former arguments in support of this olaim are here
repeated. We assume that the patent to "Wassenioh" to
whioh the Examiner refers 1b the patent to HeyBinger already
of record in the oaBe, since the number and date correspond
to the Heysinger patent.
We hope that the olaims may be allowed, but if the
Examiner oannot do bo, then we ask that final aotion be
taken.
Very respectfully,
THOMAS A. EDISON,
By _
Attorneys.
New York, September 17, 1902.
Case No./£C. Paper No,...£,
DEPARTMENT of
INTERIOR,
United States Patent Office,
WASHINGTON, D. C. OCtObST 9
Thomas A. Edison,
Care Dyer, Edmonds & Dyer,
#31 Has sau Street,
New York,N.Y.
U. 8. PATEI-tT OFFICE, I
OCT 9 1902
MAIL ED,
Please find below a communication from the EXAMINER in charge of your application,
for Sound-Re cord a, filed Juno 4,1902,8orial number 110,160*
_ . Commissioner of Patents.
This action is in response to the amendment filed the
18th ultimo.
In the first place it must be held that the Bell and
Taintor process of making an original record was a true cutting
procoss. In the patent fef Bell and Taintor, May 4,1886, #541,214,
page 3, linos 70-73, the patentee states that "This leaves sharp
cutting edges on both sides of the tapering point. These edges
remove the material in chips or shavings like a plane or turning
tool". Then on page 6, lines 70 to 74, the patentee states -"The
torn cutting is heroin employed to indicate an action in whioh
the material is removed in chips, shavings, or small pieces, as
in engraving, turning and the like, and not merely displaced."
These statements seem to establish the fact that the stylus was a
true cutting stylus and thatvthe recording process involved a
true cutting action and not a scraping action as held by applicant.
This was the well known Graphophone "syBtem". The action of
the examiner in granting patent #393,967 to the present applicant
notwithstanding the prior patent to Bell and Tainter, is not
controlling in this case whatever may have been the reasons of the
Case No,../^.?.Paper No,...jZ„,
#110,160,
Examiner that caused him to decide that the matter claimed in
applicant's patent was patentable as stated. It having been
established that Boll and Painter's process was a true cutting
process, it no w romains to construe the meaning of the term
"cutting or engraving" in the patent of Jones cited. The
expression "forming in a well known manner" in the patent, does
not negative tho holding that the record is formed by Jones by a
true cutting out or shaving process, for Bell and Taint er'e
process and applicant's patented process were both true outting
processes and these were the well known ways of forming grapho-
phone records for several years prior to the application of Jonos
and in fact the only way known to the Examiner in which up. and
down or graphophcne sound rocords had been made for years prioV
to the Jones application. This Boll and Taint or process was a
part of tho well known "graphophone system" referred to by Jonos,
p. 1, lino 56 to line 68 and Jones states therein that his process
differs thorefrom-by cutting a latoral record wherein the resis¬
tance to the stylus is uniform , whereas in said patented rrocess
the resistance to the stylus isccumiSmBS increases with tho depth
of tho cut, otc. This outting out process was therefore doubtless
the "well known" outting out or shaving process. Hot only is this
doubtless true from tho evidence of surrounding circumstances, and
from statements in the Jones patent, but what Jonos said in
his argument in the patented file, connected with the prosecution
of tho case clearly shows that so far as tho cutting feature of
his process was concerned that it was the cutting out process flf
BgH and Taintor applied to cut laterally in the plane of the
surface of the record instead of vertically in a plane at anglos to
the surf i
of the record.
Case Noi^43L..Paper No,..../?....
#110,160-
.3. *•
to
She present claims 1 to 4 belnc for the record as an
article made by the "cutting" step of the Jones patent , are again
and finally rejected in view of the patents oited in rojoctlon
thereof in the last official action and claim 5 is rejoctad
finally in view of the patents cited.
Paper No,
;-V- ■
ife , Folio No. 18.
vuf .
Applicant.
..£11 . sxLjZI
. >>
Serial No Jx4^
*2*7? -? / S—
Address.
fi. ' o
, Title..... . {Jit. /V. ; ?t>3 ■
' ' • ££
Filed . . . v f*
tfL ^uTZ/- &-£>>■ ^-s , '<?o ¥ -
signee .^„. .
Examiner’s Room No.
^y
Ass’g’t Exed-.i^^^c^£^«fRecordedc^!^^^ :^<<^Uber<Ji>.l^?^’. Page
Patent No.. '.... . _.... _ Issued _
LAW OFFICES
DYER, EDMONDS & DYER.
patenta anO patent Causes.
Petition.
tEo tbc (Commissioner of IPatents :
your petitioner , THOMAS A. KDlSOlf, a citizen of the United
States, residing and having his post office address at Llewellyn
Park, Orange, Sssex County, Hew Jersey,
PRAYS THAT LETTERS PATENT MAY BE GRANTED TO HIM FOR THE XMPROVHKKHT
IN MmSKSIBLE GALVANIC BATTERIES (case Ho. 1075)
SET FORTH IN THE ANNEXED SPECIFICATION; AND HE HEREBY APPOINTS DYER, EDMONDS
AND DYER, REGISTRATION NO. 2688 (A FIRM COMPOSED OF RICHARD N. DYER, SAMUEL
O. EDMONDS AND FRANK L. DYER), OF NO. 31 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK CITY, HIS
ATTORNEYS, WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION AND REVOCATION, TO PROSECUTE
THIS APPLICATION, TO MAKE ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THEREIN, TO RECEIVE
THE PATENT, AND TO TRANSACT ALL BUSINESS IN THE PATENT OFFICE CONNECTED
&
SPECIFICATION.
TO TOIOM IT UAY CONCERN:
Be it known that I, THOMAS A. EDISON, a citizen of
the United States, residing at Llewellyn Park, Orange, in
the County of Essex and State of New Jersey, have invented
a certain new and useful IMPROVEMENT IN REVERSIBLE GALVANIC
BATTERIES, of which the following is a description.
My invention relates to new and useful improvements
in reversible galvanic batteries of the type employing in¬
soluble aotive materials and an alkaline electrolyte, and
the invention relates particularly to the employment of a
new aotive material in the make-up of the oxidizable pole.
My objeot is to provide a suitable oxidizable material Which
iB insoluble in the electrolyte.
The Invention resides in the disoovery that an oxide
of uranium oan be electrolytioally reduced and oxidized in
an alkaline solution, and tinder all conditions of use will
be insoluble therein, so that when opposed by a suitable
depolarizing material a practioally available combination
is seoured. The new material, unlike cadmium for example,
doeB not pass from the metallio state to a condition of oxi¬
dation under the effeot of eleotrolytio oxidation and vioo
versa, but passes from a lower to a higher condition of oxi¬
dation and vioe versa when subjected to these eleotrolytio
influences. The improved aotive material is preferably co¬
ployed in the form of briquettes enclosed in perforated oupa
or pookets oriiaped in position in supporting plates, as I
have described in patents already granted.
In carrying my invention into effeot I take the
ordinary blaok oxide of uranium of commerce and thoroughly
1
mix the same with raioaoeous or flake graphite or other Inert
flakelike oonduoting material under pressure in the propor¬
tion of about seven parts of the oxide to three parts of
graphite, and this mixture is then formed into briquettes,
whioh are inserted into the pockets of the oleotrode and
submitted to sufficient pressure to oring? the pockets se¬
curely in position in the openings of the grid, as I havo
already described and shown in Letters Patent of the United
States. When an electrode employing an oxide of uranium
constructed aB explained is opposed to an electrode employ¬
ing hydrated oxide of nickel as the depolarizing material,
the voltage obtained on disoharge is about the same as that
secured in ray well known niokel-iron combination. In
oharging the oell the uranium oxide is reduced from a highor
to a lower stage of oxidation, while on disoharge a lower
oxide of uranium is oxidized to a higher condition of oxi¬
dation.
Having now described my invention, what I olaim as
new and desire to seouro by Letters Patent is as follows:
1. An eleotrode for a reversible galvanic battery
employing an alkaline eleotrolyte, said eleotrode containing
as the active material an eleotrolytioally aotive oxide of
uranium, substantially as set forth.
2. An electrode for a reversible galvanic battery
employing an alkaline eleotrolyte, said eleotrode containing
as the aotive material an eleotrolytioally aotive oxide of
uranium, and an inert flakelike oonduoting material inti¬
mately mixed with said oxide, substantially as set forth.
3. An eleotrode for a reversible galvanio battery
employing an alkaline eleotrolyte, said eleotrode containing
as the aotive material an eleotrolytioally aotive oxide of
2
uranium, and flake graphite intimately mixed with said ox¬
ide, substantially as set forth.
4. In a reversible galvanio battery employing an
alkaline eleotrolyte, the combination with an eleotrode con¬
taining an eleotrolytically active compound of niokel, of a
second eleotrode opposed thereto containing an eleotrolyti-
oally aotive oxide of uranium, substantially as set forth.
5. In a reversible galvanio battery employing an
alkaline eleotrolyte, the combination with an eleotrode oon-|
taining an eleotrolytioally aotive oompound of niokel, of a
seoond eleotrode opposed thereto containing an eleotrolyti¬
oally active oxide of uranium and an inert flakelike con¬
ducting material mixed with the latter oxide, substantially
as set forth.
6. In a reversible galvanio battery employing an
alkaline eleotrolyte, the combination with an eleotrode con¬
taining an eleotrolytioally aotive oompound of niokel, of a
seoond eleotrode opposed thereto containing an eleotrolyti¬
oally aotive oxide of uranium and flake graphite mixed with
the latter oxide, substantially as set forth.
reversible galvanio battery employing an
alkaline eleotrolyte, the 'comb inat ion with an eleotrode oon-|
taining an eleotrolytioally active oompound of niokel and
an inert flakelike oonduoting\aterial, of a seoond eleo¬
trode opposed thereto amj containing an eleotrolytioally
ally as set forth.
In a reverBiblX galvanlO'/battery employing an
alkaline eleotrolyte, the oom\ination wl^th an eleotrode con¬
taining an eleotrolytioally aotive oompound of niokel and
flake graphite, of a seoond eleotrode opposed thereto and
containing an eleotrolytioally active) oxide of\ uranium, sub-j
stantially as set forth,
9. In a\reversibie galvanic battery employing an
alkaline eleotrolyfl^, the combination with an electrode con-
taining an eleotrolycioally active compound of nickel and
an inert flakelike oon^uoting material, of a Beoond elec¬
trode opposed thereto and containing an eleotrolytioally
aotive oxide of uranium Ad an inert flakelike conducting
material mixed therewith, Substantially as set forth.
10. In a reverslbA galvani o battery employing an
alkaline electrolyte, the combination with an electrode con
taining an electrolytically aot
flake graphite, of a seoond electrode oppoaed\ thereto and
containing an eleotrolytioally aoti\e oxide of uranium and
flake graphite mixed therewith, sub s^nti ally as s^t forth.
• — V~
THO’IAS A. EDISON , the above-named
PETITIONER, BEING DULY SWORN, DEPOSES AND SAYS THAT HE IS A OitiSSSn
of the United States, and a resident of Llewellyn Park, Orange,
in the County of Essex and State of New Jersey}
THAT HE VERILY BELIEVES HIMSELF TO BE THE ORIGINAL, FIRST AND SOLE INVENTOR
of the naPBOVErmT IN HSSTEHSIBKB OALVAN.TC BATTERIES
a— mi.
SERIES OF 1900.
§ Washington, D. C., _ _ , 19o£j- ®
■g • ^ ’ ' 'S
“ Sir: g
I . 1
3 I have to aehnowledgc the receipt of the petition , specification, oath, ancl 3
o 3
I drawing of your alleged Improvement in . .
S' . vU’y^/f^/vttfAjsFJ/f-
| luith Fifteen Dollars as the first fee payable thereon. |
Washington , D. 190jL^
(\^'>P[A^Y\Jy. fym/V > —
«- . mi, . m.....:M- , has been examined and ALLOWED.
The final fct, Twenty Dollars, must maid, and the Letters Patent bear dato as of a dan not later
than SIX MONTHS from the time of tliismscnt notice of allowance.
If the final fee is not iiaid withinMfll period the patent will be withheld, and pour onlp relief will be
bp a renewal of the application, with a&tionalfces, under the provisions of Section 4807, Devised Statutes.
The Office aims to deliver patents /gpn the dap of their date, and on which their term begins to run; but
to do thisproperlg applicants willed expected to pap their final fees at least TWENTY DAYS prior to tlw
conclusion of the six months turned them bp law. The printing, photolithographing, and engrossing of
the several patent parts, prepfitutorg to final signing and sealing, will consume the intervening time, and
such work will not he done until after payment of the nccessarg fees.
Witcn pou send tlujpal fee pou will also send, DISTINCTLY AND PLAINLY WRITTEN, the name
of the INVENTOR an&flTLE OF INVENTION AS ABOVE GIVEN, DATE OF ALLOWANCE t which is
the date of this circulEN), DA TE OF. FILING, and, if assigned, the NAMES OF THE ASSIGNEES.
If pou desire move the patent issue to ASSIGNEES, an assignment containing a REQUEST to that,
effect, together the FEE for recording the same, must be filed in this Office on or before the date at
. pagmenleffiMfec.
After isjSl of the patent uncertified copies of the drawings and specifications map bo purchased at
the price oAfi oents eaoh. The monep should aecompanp the order. Postage stamps will not be
rcceioeiL ^
Rcspeetfullp, ^
$ Case No, ,/Z.PaperNo x
0 ot th0 IottorH patent to tlio patentee or lit* agent.
United States Patent Office,
■ Thoms A. Edison,
c/o Dyer, Edmonds & Iyer,
ITew York, IT. Y.
ITovembor 10, 1904.
Ser. No, 229,246, filed October 3,
"Reversible Galvanic Batteries?.
1902, renewed October 20, 1904:
_ Commissioner of Patents.
Claims 7, 8, 9 and 10 oover specifically a construction of
an electrode, containing nickel oxide. This eleotrodo should there¬
fore be correspondingly described in the specification. Claims
7 to 10, however, set forth in addition to the elements of the pre¬
ceding claims only elements that are old in the art. These claims
are therefore rebooted under ..Export e Griffith, 85 0, ji,, page 956, '
Exports Hi ley 101 0. G,., page 1832,. and in re Carpenter, 112 0. G.,
page: 503.
Applicant should limit his claims to the actual invention.
PEI1 TI
0 N
To the
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OR PATENTS,
SIR:-
Your petitioner, Thomas A. Edison, a
citizen of the United States, a resident of Lewellyn Park,
Orange, in the County of Essex and State of New Jersey,
whose postoffice address is Orange, New Jersey, represents
that on October 3, 1902, he filed an application for Let¬
ters Patent for an IMPROVEMENT IN REVERSIBLE GALVANIC BAt|
TERIES, Serial No. 125,804, which application was allowed
November 5th, 1902, but that he failed to make payment
of the final fee within the time allowed by law. He now
makes renewed application for Letters Patent for the said
invention and prays that the original specification, •
and . oath ; may be used aapa part of this application. u.
Signed at Orange, County of Essex and State of
New Jersey, this /f’^day of Botober, 1904.
•TOUTED ST AT IB PATENT OPFICE-
Thornas A. Edison,
REVERSIBLE GALVANIC BATTERIES,
Piled October 3, 1902, )
) Room No. 175.
Renewed October 20, 1904,
Serial No. 229,245.
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS,
SIR:-
We hereby withdraw as attorneys
in the above entitled application, and substitute in our
stead Mr. Prank L. Dyer, Edison Laboratory, Orange, New
Jersey, and request that further communications in the
case be sent to him.
Very respeotfully,
Attorneys of reoord.
October 20, 1905,
■UNITED STATES PATENT OEEICE-
Thomas A. Edison,
REVERSIBLE GALVANIC BATTERIES,
Piled October 3, 1902, j Room No. 175.
Renewed October 20, 1904,
Serial No. 229,245.
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER PE PATENTS,
SIR:.
In view of the Examiner's criticism
that claims 7, 8, 9 and 10 differ from oertaln of the
preoeding claims only in the use of an element old in
the art, namely, an inert flake-like conducting material
such as flake graphite mixed with the active mate rial on
the positive pole, I amend hy erasing claims 7, 8, 9
and 10.
Very respectfully,
THOMAS A. EDISON,
By
His Attorney.
Orange, N.J,
October 20, 1905,
IN REMITTING THE FINAL FEE GIVE THE SERIAL NUMBER AT THE HEAD OF THIS NOTICE,
/
229,245
Washington, D. G.,
Tho'aa3 A. Edison, Assor.
c/o Prank L. flyer,
Edison Laboratory,
Orange, H. J.
SIR: Tour APPLICATION for a patent for an IMPROVEMENT IN
Reversible Galvanic Batteries.
filed, Oct. 20, 1904., has been examined ami' ALLOWED.
The final fee, TWENTY DOLLARS, most he paid, and the Letters Patent hear date as of a
day not later than SIX MONTHS from the time of this present notice of allowance.
If the final fee is not paid within that period the patent will he withheld, and your
only relief will he hy a renewal of the application, with additional fees, under tlu> provisions
of Section J/.897, Revised Statutes. The office aims to deliver patents upon the day of their
date, and on whieh their term begins to run; hut to do this properly applicants will he
expected to pay their final fees at least TWENTY DAYS prior to the conclusion of the six
months allowed them hy law. The printing, photolithographing, and engrossing of the
several patent parts, preparatory to final signing and sealing, will consume the intervening
time, and such work will not he done until after payment of the necessary fees.
When you send the final fee you will also send, DISTINCTLY AND PLAINLY WRITTEN, the
name of the INVENTOR and TITLE OF INVENTION AS ABOVE GIVEN, DATE OF ALLOWANCE (which
is the date of this circular), DATE OF FILING, and, if assigned, the NAMES OF THE ASSIGNEES.
If you desire to have the patent issue to ASSIGNEES, an assignment containing a REQUEST
to that effect, together with the FEE for recording the same, must be filed in this office on
or before the date of payment of final fee.
After issue of the patent uncertified copies of the drawings and specifications may he
purchased at the price of FIVE CENTS EACH. The money should accompany the order. Postage
stamps will not he received.
Respectfully,
:arefully scrutinize the
$SJg=- If payment is made by check or draft, the credit allowed is subject to the collection of the same.
Folio No. '*•
Serial ^o. /Of 0^070
Applicant.
Title > <~t^rcC . ( Js*, C .onaS. ccU/, n&^-CLf.
. :v "V- s y
. Filed (J$!cZS3£^. -Z-S, /Jt&X
<Z .Cj'erZccty’Y't/tza^^i.
Examiner's Room No .
Assignee ...i- . <*<?-?■
Ass’g’t Exec.- . : '■>'•
_- y.<. L . ^.<s....:.r^<.-: <-y. . Clatz^z. .
’ / ?zr .
^Recorded: . A‘ / ^<.Liber ^ <?£ Page
//.JO Issued:....
^ . ^
\ ■*;->. O'-'^djo^ 1 6... . .
2 O f.. \ v /. f' J&kfdfC . . .. ,
3.. ..
4.. .
5..
6.. .
7.. .
8.. .
' 9,.
10...
11...
•12..
: 13...
14...
■ IS¬
15.. .
19.. :
20.. .
21...
■ 22...
23.’..
24.. .
25.. .
26.. .
27.. .
28.. .
29...
FRANK L. DYER, .
Counsel, '
ORANGE, NEW JERSEY.
ACt
Patent No. .% <5 Issued
'■ft' rS,
M f> . : . ,
. Mh
Ih
:> \ 3
16
[§717
\
. :v.. 19
20
• 6 . . ,.>r-^rr?rrSBSt . . (3.. .... -i 21.
^ f * 22
f&v 8 . IZ'V 23.
, '■'£ . $*£
ItukeJh.. . . . .(2.^. . tyo. c
.// /Qvy%l
. hteZ?....'../*..# 25...
'i
iJ
J V’l I 5^ . 26 ...
' . ®^..^.,J.9.9.£:..... 27...
I 1/ 13 ...O^C-jk . '" 28...
14 „>5L ^..,.li..,. J.ef..<>..L... ,29...
_ Jj| •• 15 V^'juz<6uk*..* . 30...
v . ' ■■■■■:■ J -
FRANK L. DYER,
Counsel,
ORANGE, NEW JERSEY. .
(j XtZTZX WCfce. V/cJLr-4. |C*
fu^-i -ce* ^ ‘“Tl *•
Xf*-* ,uc^
f Jit: ^XEE^ -
c u \ I fT
Au it— i c— ^
^ , -xfc i4^-^^
\r~ J.
D J ^
Tl
/Ur^ e^^ht
' Aii~> f*~
±r “-u^ -
7TT^ ^ ^
IG*. .£t..»)^A _f u-^<t^_ ttr
5hn Iturt.
^vd- L^r-xl.-
Xd- upET ^ sp ■
-Cfcr ■*f~* — i ffA4-p*~ ^ "^'"'v<rv^
<yJL-,^ - — ' i~
"XL—
* —A— - - bf er(U-*~
■^tT '-**~*'lr*
iw .tu, ® ^
■ " . 3
tArfvfc. lUL (>~ CL&*~fi-t s>-*^
^wf- k+fc*. VUV^*. '-“-ae
X«.| t"
Y^X~ ^ rr~« *- -v
-tM[. — ^
4^oc :.£errcr i^~ ‘- » °---}
(ot^JL t,o &~eJ2^ j^yo^ <Q t'<~^ Q<
~t<>
■#
:^ofi
jl -a-
%uueucul. : 4^^ ^d \
(jj'^cLr ^Li - —
•pm
[ON BACK OF PRECEDING PAGE]
' Foli6~No. x -2,7 •
- >..v Applicant.
...</; . &eU4.tn*S
Serial ' No. /o’ M O ' T'
Address.
. .
Title^yU^s^^^i/ .C&wUc^eC . -&#yr^Z<L . ..< .
Filed . Examiner’s Room No.
Assignee . .
Ass’g’t Exec . . . Recorded . . Liber . . Page
Patent No. ..Jo ■2’ Issued . i..9.o.iT
ACTIONS.
^ 1 - |G .
■2 (^yvt^uu . . .
..*£. .,y. #..«?..«?. . 18
•4 MMv«^..../.A4..>/.^.<>...y!', .
fi . /..!?.,«?„>S.'T,..
(i
7 . (X*vu**.(?U-iiC /JL'fcXr. /<&~./<?ojr
... in .
.. 20 .
91
.. 22 . Vi
k\\l!
8..... . » . » /-i.
.. _ 1
pus-
0. . '/ . «... -3./ ...;» . 24.
10 jSUJnM^C . .... •' *2 4 " .
.. 2ii . : _
. 1 1 <S£*-U*?«-/ 4 ■/..?A'ST~.
.. 20 . .
12 . . .
..27......
13_ . ._.. . . . 1 . . . . . •
1 4 . ;. .
..'is.,.,1. . . . ...: . . . .;.. . . . .
.. 30.. .
FRANK L. DYER,
_• . Counsel,
Orange, New Jersey.
i3: vylA?\
W>/96s :°}
^oX^ctKcJ— <3 Xu-v^^w,,
1
. V* ■
ij(Ji ft
£>vlvXXv V Si (< (kc tUv.fnW'
CS$ 0 W»fc. K^> v>
j^t-f-«X ir& live U-i-^V ^R./-
-trrjw^ o-^-t XXv.X^.
UJ^ot tr tF^«v-cA~l_. I >.«-<•-
^rfXi-*-,^ -i-f-(--‘- Wi U,'j
|yf. Cl tvif VAiW -Kv-U VVA «A.*rd&.
cLe^ ft-n *"
(^(ve. c* -6 p<- l-X t
' ■ Z CQ-'A-O VW 1C X £> OJ UA\ Lv. q
~ Qo^Jt- XXX/U' !
uX-o^-iXTm ua t(!\Q
(P^a: rJ
ojlct. (A\.Lf^vJX\ C-evUO I-O^to IM CV OAjXc^-^A
•'C^vo-Cv uteJfvTv u . I'^o ela <£>^
C9^v^w
JL*i. i.v-^— ft -«r •
(1 1
X
4
(j CC>l-V<
O- /1<
!.•:.. vi,^~ V
-j'L.e.e?-
' p
dLc.o c-r « v
f
ka, j wv ca>'R«~oR-/ ^ ■ ji/vp X.6XA.Q
c'X Xo.vv^ZSveCKv^e
•^.fjrvve, . e>- ^ LtyU
,,cJvf Tv CRp — ^ ,
^ -0U ;
\* kr’ '|X~- c
|)><- P r£x Xr.’ Cl •
1|- u^*- "~l°
, rlR? IfN^CT
<JZTV-0 j«-
..;-f* C>t~y.X@~rXZc
Sn
~\U:
1
4vcC-(<.. • f)\£ C. <_t *-'»
'\v-«_.<s^x 'XE'-t, t^oX ■O-^ -. A Jy ^(.Vf L*^>l.w*v-(L
U- - (j— ^ ^
10 ue, ~£v<*<.
„, „fc,:c~J no in iyf ~(f-
| i- ~~ -6 <••
..
tvja,-;>.^.; i; £ X> J |-o^
v^rv
-r*~~
6’-'— p r r^ p^ — ^
'P>C.C^X^-C e.»- (rs (2e £> OW^«-
CUftU— Xu/ c->/ ^>ua_XT
A / 1 , 0 J . •
. yL^T:t'X'' 6-h '-"-to L" ■■*, WTO r~
-ivb our^otxt" £t-~<r-t&.
X ’ >4
. ■ 3 ;
c*^*~ ^ '
C^TCfcT Rc.'J— Kvivv ^e.o
(v O fvru CJ*.ijA jLff,v-^|5 e.-v>" f<-v— .
-X lir-Hri^o'rj'X-
IU^Jecl =— ■? X '~sC~ J~£
v.oi.-*' w 4 - *---■• e.e,.:f'»
jtw pC • w*
U^cf- ! *•« ^t'“- cr°r
T
r
■&tr-
Leto -$~4
'->-*- jo •
.CA.Ht,
Oi 5“^
|pl .pt-rfo
j.-j
f ^ ya\\ «^<- v.». P'V '- *’ «-C .cw' t^v
U~
A
cL
.JZ
yuXZSZZ^ L--uzzzr.^-xcz J~~ac
c^tSz CL/— -e-,1fe ^ ;
.rS CA.*.. S uw*. *L&*^/ *-
v^'-t .Iterr -
JTi -cCZ
O eyv^a
.0£eU-C<-
{**...(>» rv^0-'«A-. • «.'- £.e. ' ■*'■'■'■ t~"
Ceu t <■-("£?> i- '■ “•«
■=?ttv
rl-vJ P^y °P* •«“'
, ”CX {,£*-<, fc^Xt-
7/
/
r»
U<-o-C, j^cJL- (L-^f
f • r- ■<
tir ^ u~
-tfc, ^ ^
'?( * j^?l£uz.
jpt-i'C U9 I^s-M
— -fit
\& | r^Pt.
C@~&
'■gyo IL ■**-*&*/ it
J_^n i£?;~ -*
■fcr+sf-t--2-/^/-
ik;~, C -ctt— *««- ^
J£3i\
<1
- i*
Ce^^> -trv~cy^~
.aJZXL^ . J|n^-o-«
a.
A'L^ »-' - 1 ^J~t-e>~ j!i J
~1Lg, T^Xc" JPJlt to-t-a.-* < ^ t**f (*-«■
jp^C'^io,. J fe-<-ii C.-..4C
^P eu feW4~ ^ ^^-e<2-«~.. tg&—i~«)
f. PP uo p-vL t'-e-im "P-P-1-/ u '•'*
D?.,,, XzCOL c*j >
<-» — c^~~^t c~^tZ^
k*“-~ cJu~M~^
1
iu^! — ^ — r
L/> -6-JC35?1 (^f^ '
U* «Hje
16 -
tL-im. A Jtfczzr ;
<=-a <7-
■©*.'
^J?--TC^A. dUv(-
Gu?.
LU -fc >*u~ ft __
«££t^. LJo-r-t- Ui&a*~^&'X£Z
QJU.~k-~-, lA ^
c_. V-Pcd <S~-* Jr^L-***
v==e^(U ea.
irTi-tfi
vCX'tU^ ^-tu.-&.k/
c^rTTCr crrA^--
j^yLss/^v^^ e*-«j^--l — J
\Uuj u> vr&v~w u\A.«u<j -H-
..ei. jt^JL
X-
**■
JLuvoJvs-fl U3 -cJ\ •
*h-L
oU-
Tv^a*-/ *"---»■>
«w- o&s,^ tr
l/ls^a,t-| -=A_^>
__- <5 „
<o^0-~u++- (f
jJ^qprj^ tt-'.
c^ed C^~-^ —
.aS^" ^ MyT^.
iv- rs
fytnZL ua we>uO' '-**’*■ XtleTki.^
^ e^'tcr&d-
feUodS A«p S*^-Cte Caj^ -
lid
; u,n>
„ , - o“"
fcr^d. <l*®=r Zs>->'<— ^ (
^.(^4 £-<^ 6a^
CCTXd; JtjJXx&Z Hi. "XT' /
. C . p» — Id
u
Kc r
w»,
i’sK3^&
^35^=^^-- — w ( v
JU^^^XZr ex-^&Z*
•%. epSEV Id i-J^V (XdT"
f[Pk. ., 6l<2- C5L«a-hJX^~T^ !
U>~ «v
ejA^P«p>. Cd.^A^^I
, - - ^ »■- - - ,
Cf v) u> ox. ®«j» tC
jl^^ZTJL x t
<ED tU- u^v*.-a
'<d.
— y U— vJtSJU UU V- <£&r
?*£d '>
. v|!«\ y>-^-wk'"-e-0-'- ' 0 y --
©d^.«dd - -
§.5.eX."Cte=t td ,l« d^ t.*
j ^
,i <]U^d&. ^Y“Xaa«a — ^
Ju, -ev~f~
j££*1~ ifc^r ^ ^
h^r- j^ ^ *J
7®Z> £•«-- ^ ’
U'ts-iU. i^i- k— L^kV . rxA-^>
. ' _ /
3 CX'C&V "*
n
t,OWtis
£.'— f% rf.-’--*-^^"' [XIZ
WJUl XI
f3E^ ^
,S~e. S^Cuf* Cj £-<&-*-«*
€> uo-w ek~&-*j*s e
hrr^vJ ^ ar^rt j UL*~e^k CL&n$Z*Lt >
(§^^f uLg. 6-/ 1 ct-f'i-A- Lo t«^
i <« Q_
t *~a ^ « U-o-f"
^fa**~* Arv--^-. ^t"
£, e.o^W^EZ ^c^ rfc
<&«>
c &-'>
X^ X"~ - ^ . &-r(L (L_c.~-o\ e-vv-}
y^r> * *&-JU*,
*t~£ \S>'£ ^ CXXo ^
o ft ®>'^*^vr
Qe» Y^^-®'"’-
fjtez$r’»*~,l ^
‘■'yo^er-v 0-*n^ o
Qo <^o
H;
)
ft
^.."(SjK-— <'-€. ^s~
\vLcC — (^“tix A=~-<p_
Jt
Y i-v» as X<*fe«® tCT ®||^
jbrs^SrMve I'iufV-.
-tfcrA~~- 'X e£* "^fX
ufftfcfc o- - eA^'
^L^- ,, ““'r:- r ~ LX-a-~ V* l^A-*
uitetr
f‘L^
vt
l>vJ~ 'TV
<-k l-wX ^ \ “U ^1
^rCJ &%
e^'^ST Kt‘c~
j^^L. ^ tVuva^-w-n ^-c^'^-v^CieXcXv, | .
p-oW trvu«. € ^
RxJ ttxr*. “ts 4«-
cstE . ©Jsijs-O'K *w- — ^J“”1 1 1 “'^
6^— ( ^
ft rit
' * ' ft ■“' *"
V/
£ fcfc^ 1M-P <»-**« rv»- j^ cx C>(A *vu
— &tj
£J^p£L&>
c(?Cb 2-k» -~wTT-^fS4
^X-.
qJL^XL- ^«->,.c. «>“<-*
--^pnic "^T- kn-^a-"
*6
£/5»-€>~<s'
'V\A-‘OhTw<ii»
_4sX TC3-*
■fr
LaaX»" 2-A-A—
fipX . y'CJh.
Q,C> C..'^
•2-p-vva. >-UtttU 4-~“^ ■f”
jrf KA—afVffo, ^£J’’
L-OXC. «v.
jL^res *—*i *Zd>“t'MS
UJsh -tc^-^4^^
LJSb U
uiriU-^ ^£~*~5f'r
^ ~ ^o^-—
cLtezz* «t
Cl-a* v^-'t/k^t
.4.,^ ^ -
vt'Wh^^'^'^6^ |^fi-p^4rk TK«-
$lJ$H+-QL. e*^V
a „Tfc=erTE wkr4,
w=Cfcv~. IU I MW~|
U- tffy''^ lAf'V
Jf =(-. u5JjL‘ ^ C.f^aX«v*
%<
fD 't.-t'TVvv
„ . ^ jL<£>^\
Q tv rvv.f ft &
u-e. (At- *s ..^we
6~-f
<| uj?- A P-«-~.r-*j {. "c™^l"
p-p>eje^ a^t^-d kt.^
£Cd uo 'KiJwi
tfL-erv^u*- (&-*-*-^~ ®"S
glA^y*
a- -^-ff ,
qJj^ ^
j 1/v^a^*L. Ge/v JU fcvG£tJ
irtn is*~A (
u H^p'i ^ e^e t\
!
July 5th, 1905.
Edward Dinan, Esq.,
c/o Edison Portland cement Company,
Ste vartsville , N.J.
Dear Mr. Dinan
Your favor of the 17th ult. with enclosures,
were duly received, and I am very much obliged to you for the
careful mamner in which you have gone into the matter. 1 am now
in a position to go right ahead with the kiln case, and would
like to know whether it would he possible for you to spend two
or three days at Orange with me, in order that I might have the
benefit of your experience. Of course, if it would be inconveni¬
ent for you to leave Stewartsville , I can do as much work as
possible here and then go up to Stewartsville and spend a day
going over the papers with you. Let me know about this right
away. Have you been able to determine the stack temperature of
the Edison kiln? We should have this information before taking
up the case for final action.
Yours very truly,
eld/aek.
TRe Edison Portland Cement ( q .
Telegraph and Passenger Station, NEW VILLAGE, N. J.
P. O. Address, STEWARTSVILLE, N. J.
July 7, 1905.
lo: stack temperature:
Mr. E. I,. Dyer,
Edi s on Lab orator y,
Orange, N. J.
Dear Sir:-
I have your favor of the 5th relative to the kiln matter. Under
the present circumstances at our plant here, I find that it is practically
impossible for me to get away any time in the near future.
I would suggest, if possible-, you work up the case and then
if you Could arrange to c erne to Stewartsville , where we can go over the
matter, 1 will have ready and accessable am Information and literature
on the subject. As it is now, I am working over time almost every day
and it is practically impossible for me to leave for any length of time
as you suggest.
Concerning the stack temperature, as far as we have gone into the
matter, I have determined that under good working, Edison kilns show temper
ature at -the base of the stack of about lOOO^B1. to 1100°E. This will be
lower with the use of finer coal towards which we are working, as under
good working with only fairly fine coal, we have noted recently
temperatures as 895°, 995°, arid 905°E.
The average of all our observations figure's 1097 °E. and this
includes some taken under very unfavorable conditions. In fact,, we took
some temperatures at times merely to see hov; poorly the kiln was working. /
As an instance , yesterday we were forced to use very coarse coal.?
.2.. July 7, 1905,
The coarse particles being hi own into the kiln soon pass so far In that
they are burned to CO only, which later burns to CO2, when mixing with
the air drawn in at the stack base. This develops s a high heat and the
temperature proved to be 1700°F. With normally fine coal this combustion
would take place within the kiln. I cite this to show you -what •fine coal
has to do with' the case.
Vie are safe in assuming that with normally fine coal under-
normal working the stack temperature will be under 1000°!’. , if not under
900*^.
1 hope you can arrange to egjjjid a day at Stewartsville , as
I believe under the circumstances it is the best thing to do as exjjlained
above .
Yours very truly,
(sS '
Edward Di nan, Esq.,
c/o Edison Portland Cement Company,
Stev/artsville, H.J.
Dear Mr. Dinan:-
Your favor of the 7th inst. has been
received, and 1 appreciate fully the embarrassment which would,
he caused by your leaving Stev/arfcsville at this time, and I
will, therefore, arrange to do as much work as possible at
Orange and go over the papers with you at S'tewartsville Borne
time later.
1 thank you very much for your information regard- ;
ing stack temperatures.
fid/ark.
Yours very truly,
i. f
tK-C-Ct^c.sl.
_ v
. C ..
'4
-PA
y ■
\-j
O' P--
. / . .
> V
-/Lc.-A fL
f CL
<PPi~.
tS '
It,,-, Ay.,*
jb-tcc
7y fits & jg^c.
t-Pl ^
«^-
. _ ;
/UjfSA s/a/Lf 3/2.
Vf?-
+.?: ~
Serial Nn. / S> V <? '
..</• . ^ ' &£von<, \^o 'ofyj _
Examiner’s Room No. «^<g<T _
t - 7. /?o 3 _ 1 6 _ .
2 jj^gsgSfe-^kliiZj....^ ^ 3 /./?(, & j 7 _
. 'ff-e* - </, / fo^i 1 8 _
4 _ a.^, /$>o 4. | g _
FRANK L. DYER,
• Counsel, ■■!-•■_
Orange, New Jersey;
0
.
® LAW OFFICES
DYER, EDMONDS & DYER.
patents ana patent aaueea.
Petition.
Go tbc Commissioner of IPatents :
your petitioner THOMAS A. BDISOIT, a citizen of tho United^
States, residing and having his post offioe address at Llewellyn
Park, Orange, County of Essex and State of New Jersey,
PRAYS THAT LETTERS PATENT MAY BE GRANTED TO HIM FOR THE IMPROVEMENT
IN PORTLAND CEMENT AND PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME (Case
No. 1087)
SET FORTH IN THE ANNEXED SPECIFICATION ; AND HE HEREBY APPOINTS DYER, EDMONDS
AND DYER, REGISTRATION NO. 2888 (A FIRM COMPOSED OF RICHARD N. DYER, SAMUEL
O. EDMONOS AND FRANK L. DYER), OF NO. 31 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK CITY, HIS
ATTORNEYS, WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION AND REVOCATION, TO PROSECUTE
THIS APPLICATION, TO MAKE ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THEREIN, TO RECEIVE
THE PATENT, AND TO TRANSACT ALL BUSINESS IN THE PATENT OFFICE CONNECTED
THEREWITH.
■'p'fTnR1: . a. . ■firriTRftw:
SPECIFICATION.
(TO' WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I Be it known that I, THOMAS A. EDISON, a oitizen of
the United States, residing at Llewellyn Park, Orange, in the
County of Essex and State of New Jersey, have invented a cer¬
tain new and useful IMPROVEMENT IN PORTLAND CEMENT AND PRO¬
CESS OP MANUFACTURING THE SAME, of which the following ia a
specification: -
My invention relates to improvements in Portland
oement and process of manufacturing the same and my Object ii
to produce a Portland cement v/hidi shall he of a uniform
and definite chemical composition having reliable and per¬
fectly controlled characteristics us well as superior cement¬
ing properties. In all satisfactory Portland cements as now
made, the clinker produoed from the kilnB contains a certain
percentage of anhydrous lime, due to the foot that the heat
reactions are arrested at a point just short of fully com¬
bining all the alkaline with the aoid constituents of the
mixture, and also to the fact that the original mixtures
are not properly mixed or ground fine enough to permit of
perfeot ohemioal oombi nations by the present methods of cal¬
cination in kilns. The principal souroe of the anhydrous
free lime in the usual clinker is due to tho fact that all
parts are not subj eoted to a heat of sufficient temperature
or for a Ipng enough period or for both reasons to effect a
perfeot combination. As a matter of fact, it is not desir¬
able in the present methods of making Portland oement that
the ol inker should be so perfectly burned as to contain no
free anhydrous lime, sinoe manufacturers have found by ex¬
porters that such a cement, i. e. , one containing no free
anhydrous lime, is not only very difficult and expensive to
grind, with the machinery now used hut the oement produced
when properly limed and ground to the usual fineness sets
with such rapidity that it cannot he handled or used in
praotioe, and this is true even if the attempt he made to
retard setting of the oement hy adding a small quantity of
burned gypsum as is now done to retard the setting of hy¬
draulic oements generally.
Consequently, the aim of manufacturers has been to
produce in their kilns a olinker of a poouliar oharaoter
which is neither burnt at too high or too low a temperature
and which has neither been subjected to the heat for too
long or too Bhort a time, all of whioh depends upon the eye
and skill and judgment of the person in charge of the kiln.
With such a. clinker experience proveB that the ground cemeir;
produced therefrom will, in most cases, have certain charac¬
teristics as to ultimate strength and time of setting, but
there is no assured oertainty as to these factors since the
process depends for its suocess upon the skill and judgment
of the individual burner.
In the United States, most of the Portland oement
produoed is burned in rotary kilnB and the clinker so ob¬
tained consists physically of balls varying in Bize from tv»
inohes in diameter to one-sixteenth of an inch or Iobs in
diameter. These olinker bolls are formed in the kiln at an
early stage of the process and in passing towards the hotter
zones of the kiln become semi-fused and more dense, in some
instances forming masses due to the agglomeration of balls o:?
smaller size. During the burning process the aoid contents
of the mixture gradually combine with the alkaline contents,
but on account of the varying sizes of the clinker bolls all
are not burnt equally throughout and many of these balls hav >
-2-
interior portions Which do not reaoh a sufficient tempera¬
ture, during the relatively short time of their passage
through the kiln, as to permit of a perfect combination of
their acid and alkaline constituents. In the case of the
larger olinker balls the outside portions are properly clink*
ered and the necessary chemical combinations have been ef¬
fected; further towards the center, for a section of greater
or lesser depth, according to the clinkering oortfitions and
the size of the balls, a partial combination has been ef¬
fected and the material is hard; finally at the center of
many of the clinker balls the material is still soft and
flourlike in quality and soaroely any combination has taken
place. When olinker of this sort is finely ground, the
soft centers, in which little or no ohemical combination has
been effected, are reduced to a fine powder or flour con¬
taining anhydrous lime, vhioh, on exposure to moisture-laden
air in transit to or within the stock house, becomes hydrate!
and therefore non-esqmnsive. The presence of a small pro¬
portion of hydrated lime is necessary in satisfactory Port¬
land cement in order to retard the rapidity with whioh the
latter sets. In the case of the semi-burnt portions of
the clinker balls, these also oontain free anhydrous lime
and when ground result in the formation of a mixture of fine
flourlike particles and finely divided more or less crystal¬
line grains, whioh latter, in course of time, absorb water,
causing the anhydrous lime to beoome hydrated, resulting in
the swelling and disruption of the oonorete in which the oe*
ment is used. The semi-burnt portion of the olinker is in
oonsequenoe an ingredient of great danger on account of thif
slow expansive action, Whioh may require months or even a
year or two to become effective. The outer shells of the
olinker balls on account of their superior hardness produce
-3-
very little flour with the usual grinding; machinery, aid
generally form the hulk of the coarse part of the cement.
Hence, manufacturers of Portland oement use the greatest
oare to produce clinker v/hioh will have the same proportion
of hydrated lime when ground and aerated, and a minimum am¬
ount of the hard, uriburnt or transition olinkor containing
anhydrous lime in a dangerous physical condition. In order
to produce a olinker of this peculiar character, it is very
lecessary, as I have already explained, to keep the tempera¬
ture within narrow limits and to depend upon the long exper¬
ience, skill and judgment of the operator in charge of the
kiln. Even When the greatest care is exercised, the varia¬
tions in the character of. the burnt clinker are so great
that the daily product of the some establishment frequently
differs within quite wide limits.
I have devised grinding and screening maohinery by
whioh the hardest burned clinker can be economically ground
to great fineness and have described the same in my patents
No. 637,327, dated November 21st, 1899, No. 648,934, dated
May 8th, 1900, No. 671,316, dated April 2nd, 1901, No. 6 71,-
317, dated April 2nd, 1901, and No. 679,600, dated July 30th,
1901, and I have also devised improvements in kilns whereby
the perfect burning of a cement mixture oan be effected
without any previous skill or judgment on the part of the
kiln attendant, so that the product shall contain no anhy¬
drous lime and be practically constant throughout, with the
same characteristics} being, in fact, pure Portland oement.
. The kiln referred to I describe in an application for paten 1,
( filed &££%£&&&
In oarrying my present invention into effect, I so
proportion the lime to the aoid ingredients of the mixture
as that there shall always be a slight excess of aoid over
the lime, to insure the ohemioal combination of all the lime.
In the kiln I bum the ingredients for a longer time and at
a higher heat than usual, whereby the vitrification is car¬
ried further than 1b now customary, no that the whole of
the clinker shall always be thoroughly and completely vit¬
rified. ^Ehis is more easily attained with a higher than j
with a lower stage of burning, for the reason that when the
lime is in a proportion to leave a small peroent of acid
present in the resulting clinker, the melting point of the j
clinker is very high and its perfect vitrifioation can be /
carried out thoroughly without entirely melting it, as the
range of temperature between the points whore the clinker /
molts and is perfectly vitrified is vary considerable.^) By
using a kiln of abnormal length and diameter, furnished with
a cl inker ijg acne of about four times the length of clink-
Bring zones now employed, with a load of material from five
to seven times that which is customarily used, the material
in the kiln is perfectly mixed and is evenly burned through¬
out, so that a perfectly safe and reliable clinker is ob¬
tained, having always the same definite composition and
characteristics and requiring no previous Bklll on the part
of the kiln attendant. When clinker of this oharaoter is
ground to oement it has, if used alone, properties whioh v
render it useless for purposes for which oement is ordinari-7
ly used, for the reason that it absorbs from forty per cent
to fifty per oent of its weight of water, aooording to the
fineness of grinding, to make it sufficiently plastio. When
30 employed the pure completely burned clinker sets in two
or three minutes, and this is true even when the usual am¬
ount of burned gypsum is added. I find, in fact, that
burned gypBun has but little effeot on pure clinker oement
in retarding the time in whioh it sets. If, however, in
addition to the usual proportion of burnt gypsum, from one
- - _ _ _ _ , _ ' _ -8- _ ' . . .
to two per cent or more of dry hydrate of lime is added to
the cement, according to the fineness of grinding, the re¬
sulting mixture sets slowly, depending upon the quantity of
the lime so added, and it possesses all the ingredients and
characteristics of the regular oommeroiol Portland cement.
My improved cement is, however, superior to the hydraulic oe-
ment now made inasmuch as it is of greater strength and con¬
tains no expansive ingredients, like anhydrous lime in the
hard particles which in time results in the destruction of
any Portland cement containing it. The advantage of pro¬
ducing in the first instance a definite, pure and reliable
Portland cement clinker, and afterwards adding a known am¬
ount of a necessary ingredient, such as hydrate of lime, to
retard the setting operation, instead of trying to produce
a oomplete cement, containing a sufficient amount of anhy¬
drous lime in the original clinker in a state to permit of
easy grinding as well aB to allow it to become hydrated by
exposure to the air, is very great, since with my invention.’,
a definite ohemioal combination is secured, having reliable
and perfectly controlled characteristics, as well as super¬
ior oementing properties. On the other hand, with present
prooesseB, the product is inconstant and uncertain, and re¬
quires the greatest oare on the part of the manufacturers
to secure a commercially reliable and thoroughly even re¬
sult. Moreover, by reason of my improvement a finished
product is seoured in the first instance, which requires no
aerating or "aging" to make it commercially acceptable as
with present prooesseB, and for this reason X am enabled to
effeot a further and very considerable economy in the manu¬
facture.
-6-
Having now described my invention, what I olaim as
jnewtherein and desire to seouro by Setters Patent is as
follows : -
____ 1, Portland cement clinker having the following?
// , ii 't&n+.'KiWBi*
;3?.£>./'70“j|proportieo: (1) absorbing a larger amount of water than
'jprwtrdrt to obtain equal plasticity, (2) being substantially
red gypsum, and (3)
by gypsum and slaked
iunaffeoted as to its setting tine by bj
i ing controlled as to its sotting tim
2, An improved Portland or. hydraulic cement, com¬
prising oourpletely^ulne^ cement clinker free of anhydrous
lime, and hydrated lime mixed with the olinker, substantial¬
ly aB set forth.
3'. An improved Portland or hydraulic cement, oom-
t rising oompletoly(bumod) cement clinker free of anhydrous
ime and to which is added a non-expansive ingredient which
[[retards sotting, substantially as sot forth.
^ 4„ An improved Portland or hydraul ic oement, com¬
prising completely burned ceraont clinker free of anhydrous
lime, with burned gypsum and hydrated lime added thereto,
substantially as set forth.
\ 5. An improved ingredient 'for use in\the manufact¬
ure Portland or Mydraulio\ oement, obmprising\ completely
burned oement o linker free of\anhydrous lime, substantially
as set forth.
£ jf. An improved Portland or hydraulio oement, com¬
prising completely (burned) cemant olinker free of anhydrous
lime and having a preponderance of acid ingredients, and a
material added thereto to retard setting, a Tibs tan tially as
set forth.
An improved Portland or;hydraulio cement, com¬
prising completely (bume^ cement olinker free of anhydrous
lime and having a preponderance of acid ingredients, and
hydrated lime added thereto, substantially aB set forth.
^ X' An imp roved Portland, or hydraulic cement, com¬
prising completely burned cement clinker free of anhydrous
lime and having a preponderance of acid ingredients, and
burned gypnum and hydrated lime added thereto, substantial¬
ly as set forth.
\ 9. An ingredient for use in the manufacture of
[Portland or hydraulic orient, consisting \f completely burnedj
oement\ol inker free of a^Wdrous lime nXd haviig a prepon¬
derance '''of acid ingrodienr? , substantially ah set forth.
t The process of manufacturing Portland cement,
| which oonsists in completely burning cement olinkor so as to I
eliminat^’lfreo anhydrous lime; and in then adding to the cemeht
clinker a material which retards the setting, substantially
as set forth.
The process of manufacturing Portland cement,
which consists in completely timing cement clinker to elim- |
inate free anhydrous lime end in then adding hydrated lime
to the clinker, substantially as sot forth.
^ JO ygj. The process of manufacturing Portland oement,
whloh consists in completely burning oement clinker to elim-|
inate free anhydrous lime and then adding hydrated lime and |
burned gypsum, substantially as set forth.
The process of manufacturing Portland cement,
whidi consists in completely burning a cement mixture having|
ah excess of acid so os to result in the production of
clinker having an excess of acid ingredients with no anhy¬
drous lime, and in then adding to the olinker a material whiiojh
retards the setting, substantially as set forth.
f %^C. The process of manufacturing Portland oement,
which consists in completely burning a oement mixture having!
an excess of aoid so as to result in the production of olitfcj-
er having an excess of acid ingredients with no anhydrous
lime, and in then adding to the clinker, hydrated lime to
retard the setting, sUbBtant ially as set forth.
^ 1 3 The process of manul'aoturing Portland cement,
which oonsiBts in oompletely burning a cement mixture having
an excess of acid so as to result in the production of clink¬
er having an excess of aoid ingredients with no anhydrous
lime, and in then adding hydrated lime and burned gypsum
thereto, substantially as set forth.
-9-
THIS SPECIFICATION SIGNED AND WITNESSED
13tll DAY OF UOV.
. THOS. . A. . EDISON.
Wlltness:
i . PRANK L.-DYBR. .
2. ; J. S’. RANDOLPH .
Oath
State of
Count? of
New Jersey
Essex
THOMAS A» EDISON , the above-named
PETITIONER, BEING DULY SWORN, DEPOSES AND SAYS THAT HE IS A OltiZGn
of the United Staten, and a resident of Llewellyn Park, Orange,
County of Essex, State of New Jersey;
THAT HE VERILY BELIEVES HIMSELF TO BE THE ORIGINAL, FIRST AND SOLE INVENTOR
of the IMPROVEMENT IN PORTLAND CEMENT AND PROCESS OP MANUPACT-
URING THE SAME
DESCRIBED AND CLAIMED IN THE ANNEXED SPECIFICATION; THAT HE DOES NOT
KNOW AND DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THE SAME WAS EVER KNOWN OR USED BEFORE
HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF; OR PATENTED OR DESCRIBED IN ANY
PRINTED PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY
BEFORE HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF, OR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR
TO THIS APPLICATION; OR IN PUBLIC USE OR ON SALE IN THE UNITED STATES FOR
MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THIS APPLICATION, AND THAT NO APPLICATION
FOR FOREIGN PATENT HAS BEEN FILED BY HIM OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OR
'ASSIGNS IN ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY.
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE
[SEAL!
. . . mos. A. EDISON.. . ; . .
ME THIS 13 th day of Noyr. 1902.
_ _ J. . P... RANDOLPH . .
NOTARY PUBLIC.
Folio 28,
2. A improved Portland or hydraulic cement, compris¬
ing completely vitrified but unfused cement clinker free
|| anhydrous lime^and hydrated-.lime.-mixed with .the clinker,
substantially as set -forth.; _ : _
— ’ - a". - The process of manufacturing cement which con-
-sist s -in -calcining Portland -cement materialfr;§p to ^ gro-
due e c ompletely vitrified_ but 'unfusecL cljnk^r, pooling and
pulverizing said clinker and adding thereto a material
which retards the' / of said pulverized clinker, substan¬
tially as set forth.
o.2m* ■
OEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
United States Patent Office,
Washington, o. C. .Tan. 7, 1008.
Fionas A. J?dison, j v^. /o^b , '
a/a Dyer, F.dmonds & Dyer, j
aB»l Hassau "t. , | ~c>~ u, |
Please find Hlfow aeSmviZn&ion. from the EXAMINER in. charge of your application,
- mfl W9(1 Tlof,. b 190?.. For PORTLAND OJBSWT & FRO-
fier.iio. 184,oib. Filed JW0* n» ^ nMns 0p JIANTJFAOTTTR Did
TKF. SA’tR.
^ tA .
This application has Leon examined.
Paya 4, line 28, the serial number of the application
should "ha inserted.
Ola 1)1 1, line 5, insert burned before gypsum. Line 8,
substitute "at. present" by those Known prior to my invention or
insert olinhers kno^m lief ore "at".
Plains 1, 5 and 9 are rejected on F.ng. patent to Hurry,
4717,9 0f 1900 (Permit ) . These claim further do not define a
product different from acid furnace Slag. - .
Case No... (SX. Paper No . L
Examiner Div. 15.
UNITED STATES PATENT 0EE1CE,
Thos. A. Edison,
Portland Cement and Process of
Manufacturing some,
Piled December 5,1902,
Serial No. 134, 018.
Room No, 207.
Hon. Commissioner of Patents,
Sir:-
Please amend as follows
Page 4, fourth line from bottom, eraee "oonourrentl;
herewith'1 and substitute - December 5,1902, Serial No.
134,017, -
Claim 1, lines 2 and 3 erase "at present" and sub-
situte - those known prior to my invention -
Same Claim, line 5, before "gypsum" insert -burned -■
Cancel ClaimB 5 and 9 and renumber the remaining
Claims .
Applicant has amended the first claim as the Examin¬
er suggests. This claim is distinguished from the British
patent to Hurry in respect that it defines a produot whose
setting time is controllable by burned gypsum and Blacked
lime. With the Hurry produot the patent states that no
additional ingredient ia necessary "to produce safety and
slowness of setting". '
The 5th and 9th Claims have been erased because
those Claims seem to be broader than applicant's inventior
and cover an incomplete product.
Orange, H.tf.
December 4,1903.
Very respectfully,
Thos. A. Edison,
By
.
department of the Interior,
United States Patent Office,
Washington, d. c. Deo. 26. 1903 .
Thomas A. Edison,
c/oEdison Laboratory,
Frank L. Dyer,
I u- STPATENTopFic^
DEC 2 6'19'Od
DIVISION
Orange, . .
Please find below a communication -from the EXAMINER in charge of your application,
Ser.Ho.l34,L18. Filed Dec. 5, 1902. For PORTLAND CENEHT & PROCESS
OP MANUFACTURING THE SAME.
R J. ,
Commissioner of Patents.
Case considered as amended Dec. 5, 1903.
Claim 1 seems to he only a comparison in degree to some other
clinker or slag or a statement of merits and docs not set out dif¬
ferent properties and is informal. It is considered that acid
slag has the same properties.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected on Passow,
#13,793 of 1901, English patent, (106 - 43). Slag of species 1 is
acid and lime is added to start a kind of decomposition or breaking
up of this molecule to produce a cement. This same theory is dis¬
closed by Zulkowski, Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry,
Eyre & Spottiswoode, East Harding St., London, Apr. 30, 1898, Vol.
17 1 pages 353 and 668, where he states that it is necessary to add
lime to acid slag to start this decomposition. It is considered
that it is no invention to produce a speoial slag instead of using
ent to Larsen, #10,385 of 1887. This patent Shows the addition
of lime and sulphate of calcium to slag which might be acid, slag.
ABst> Examiner Div. 15.
UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE.
Thomas A. Edison
IMPROVEMENT IN PORTLAND CEMENT &
PROCESS OE MANUFACTURING THE SAME
Filed December 5, 1902
Serial No. 184,018.
Room No. 207
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS,
SIR: -
Replying to Office action og December
26, 1903, please amend the- above entitled case as followd:
Claim 1, line 5, change "controlled" to -
retarded. Same line, after "by" insert - the addition
thereto of.
REMARKS.
A reconsideration of the rejection of the claims
is requested.
The object of the invention is the production
of a Portland Cement which shall be of uniform and defin¬
ite chemical composition, which shall oontain no free an¬
hydrous lime and at. .the same time, shall not set with such
rapidity that it cannot be used in practice.
V/hen a perfectly burned Portland oement is pro¬
duced and used without other constituents the same setB
with such rapidity that it is not capable of practical’. .
use. Applicant has discovered that by the addition there¬
to of hydrated lime, this difficulty -may. be avoided.
There ie a wide difference between the process art|,
product herein set forth and those of the references.
Mr. Edison' b process is a Portland oement process and hiB
product a Portland oement. The references all relate to
slag oement processes and products.
Although Hurry & Seaman in British patent Ho.
7139 of 1900 describe their prooess as "an Improved pro¬
cess for the manufacture of Portland oement", this 1b a
misnomer, because they describe a slag process, merely
using a specifically prepared slag instead of a blast fur¬
nace slag; that is, they use a fusion process, not one
of incipient vitrefication.
A Portland oement, as the term is UBed by man¬
ufacturers and experts, is one which is made by mixing
the materials together and heating them until the proper
chemical reactions take place. These reactions are com¬
plete when the mass is in a condition of semi-fusion -
it is not liquid, but pasty. . If any fusion takeB place^ff
it is an accident, and the product iB overburned Portland
oement, which is worthless as such, since it has no, or at
most, very slight cementitious properties.
On the other hand the slagB disclosed by all the
references are in a state of oomplete fusion during the
prooess of making oement.
Thus Larsen say^: (page 3, linB! 12)
"I therefore prefer in instances where thiB can¬
not be conveniently carried out to collect the fluid
slagB in large removable tanks reservoirs or ladles
plaoed on rails which will enable one to remove the
slags in a fluid state to a place more suitable for
further or special treatment than the immediate neigh¬
borhood of the furnace."
Hurry and Seaman say: (page 2, line 27)
- 2 -
"The fused, material after "being drawn off from t.
the "bottom of the furnace may "be granulated "by treat¬
ment with water or steam in any of the well-known
methods, Buch for instance as the method used in the
granulation of blast furnace alag."
Pas sow says:
"1 declare that what I claim is:-
"1. Process for producing cement by melting the
raw materials together, rapidly oooling the molten
product , grinding the same and mixing it with from
one half to five per cent of lime, substantially as
described and for the purpose set forth."
Moreover, other differences are apparent. In
the patent . to Larsen whatever lime iB used is added while
the slag is in a state of fusion.
Larsen sayB: (p. 3, line 21)
"I then submit the slagB to the treatment requir¬
ed for each special case on the spot where they will
be made into cement. ThiB treatment as heretofore
consists either in granulation in water or disinte¬
gration and sudden cooling, but besides this 1 may
mix the slags whilst they are still in a fluid state
in the ladles or brought to special mixing furnaces
or reservoirs with such materials preferably if pos¬
sible also in a fluid state so that the most perfect
admixture can be effected as will render them suitable
or more suitable for producing good cement, for in¬
stance, Aluminia, Silica or Lime or one or more of
these combined, and if possible brought to fusion be¬
fore the mixing."
Hurry and Seaman use no lime except such as is
necessary to obtain a proper mixture for fusion
They say:- (p. 3, line 8)
"When the material is melted in a furnace as
above described, in direct contact with the fuel, it
is necessary to use a raw mixture of cement materials
containing a higher percentage of lime than is requir¬
ed in the older processm this extra proportion being
required for combination' with the silica and alumina
of the fuel ash."
In the patent to Passow, lime is added to the
Blag after granulation. Passow states that the granulat¬
ed slag of itself setB and hardens very slowly, but when
combined with lime Bets and harden excellently. The pro¬
cess of the British patentee is just the opposite of that
of applicant. Passow first produces a very slow-Betting
cementitious substance and adds lime, in order to produce
a quicker setting cement. lime of itself is not an hy¬
draulic cement, and it seems from the description in the
reference, and as stated by the examiner, that the effect
of the lime is to produce a kind of decomposition or breaty
ing up of the slag molecule. A chemical reaotion takes
place between the slagand the lime, the algg being acid
and the lime basic, whereby the alag molecules are brok¬
en down and a cement is produced. According to applicant's
invention, a Portland cement is first produced, which
is very quick setting, and hydrated lime is added as an
adulterant; that is, it is not added because of any ce¬
mentitious properties which it may possess or in order
to react chemically upon the cement clinker to which it
is added, but merely to retard the setting of the latter,
so that it may be used i» practice.
It is evident therefore that applicant's process
is entirely different from those of the references and
that the product which is produced necessarily differs
from those described in the reference.
The claims are believed to clearly sot forth
these differences. The product claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 are
limited to "completely burned cement clinker free of anjiy-
drous lime" These claims appear to distinguish from all
cements formed from slag, since slag is not burned cement
clinker.
The process claims 8 an<t 9 specify "completely
burning oement clinker to eliminate free anhydrous lime"
and claims 11 and 12 specify "completely burning a cement
mixture having an excess of acid so as to result in the
production of clinker having an exoesdxof acid Ingredients
with' no anhydrous lime." These elements are not found in
slag cement processes, wherein the ingredient fus^~
- 4 -
together, the resultant slag being in fluid oondition
and when cooled having slight oementitiousproperties un-
lessespecially treated. '
Claim 1 is believed tb be in proper form, under
the practice which permits a new product to be claimed by
its characteristics . mile it is true, that the first
property iB claimed by comparing applicant's product with
. oement clinkers previously Shown, this objection cannot
be urged against the remaining elements of the, claim. The
claim as amended is believed to clearly distinguish from
acid slag oement, whose setting time is accelerated by
lime. '
Respectfully submitted, ' .
THOMAS A. 3D1S0H,| .
By i
$A. oCj _
His Attorney.
Orange, New Jersey
December /L 1904. %
s—iioo.
DIV.JUL noom_..308 . Paper No. 4* .
GDJ
DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR,
United States Patent Office,
Washington, d. c., Jan, 9, 1905.
Thomas A. Edison,
o/o Frank I. Dyer,
Edison 'Laboratory,'
Ser.No. 134,018, filed Deo.
u. s. prnnr officZ
JAN fit 1305
* from Hut EXAMINER in oharjto of yonr application,
5, 1903, for PORTLAND CEMENT & PROCESS
OF MANUFACTURING SAME.
$ c/, $lJLs^
CaBe oonaidered as amended Dec. 17, 1904.
Claims 2, 3, 8, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected on the refer¬
ences of record. The argument as to the difference between the
degrees of burning as mentioned by applicant and by the references
does not apply to the olaims. The words "completely burned cement
clinker" are not considered to distinguish between heating to a
temperature to produce a viscous mass or a fluid mass. If the
claims brought out the distinction it is thought that this is only
a difference in degree and that the viscous mass would have no prop¬
erties not possessed by the fused mass, as Hurry & Seaman of record
and Cummings, $206,616, July 2, 1878, (106 - 43) have found that
the fused mass has strong hydraulic properties. Hurry & Seaman state
that they are oareful to have all the lime oombined so that’ the
product must be at least neutral and is probably aoid. Passow’s
product Is add. if any substantial difference between vitrified
and fused produot dan be shown end it be brought out in the speci¬
fication the olaims may be allowed. It should also be made oletf
in .the specification, impossible, any distinction in proportion!
of , ingredients in the composition. V.:.
Exandner.,!
Serial No. jLSJZ&Z
Title . Q™/’/''.-:,-
— : , — -i
. . c
. . . # .
Filed . • . , . 4',
Assignee .
Examiner’s Room No.
4- .
Ass’g’t Exec . - . _ . . . _Recorded_ . . Liber Page
Patent No. . Issued^.
ACTIONS.
- 3 18...
§: 19...
,;f ,' S.d!«*k^ 20...
j|;-, 6:. . . ....;. . :.... 21....
I- • 7 . '. . •• . 22...
; 8..'. . . . • . : . . 23....
■ 9 . , . . . . . ‘ 24. ..
f to..;.. . 25...
<;:n:-1;1 26...
, . i2....... . . . . ......v, . . 1: . : 27.....
I ; 13......;...... . . . . . v . . 28 .
- ->;i4 . ‘ . , . . . . . ....:. 29..:.
)/J\5 . ’ . ; 30 .
. / ntiLt . . .. ■’C--
FRANK L. DYER,
Counsel,
. nu AivrhTr'ivnr\T7~ nn? ctrv 1 ‘i-3
** rx i~<U
q)L OVCCg,\v( wv. GX'vx-o t%A Onw.tvwc.vwrj 7CC L(ua. lU. aTe** (S'Cvtu
-ttc CtrCJ^^cCM ^rv.^oaC,4^ I
■j-4 &J. uotranu fuJ £«~Jp,.f2 ^-dZ
“B8: "X -
ar Hi 4«ISX<— tc^y L^ eX^T^fC-i - -
*/ ‘L^Jj/'Hi (auUu~'-~ t— ^ cL^"3'
Lu tu^'^
r~|— c„:-- v f jnr . f •Jr "tTHU l jxL^tiJ ^ <---|
Q-c^i |oC.Q^ 0-C^«— (tbcrzz^. e^ 8-'^
ut~LjucS^ xl75e,6- QCce*~~ tl fczTTyj^ c 0*
^<w^vjtJL-£C'rL ~Xr (-cv^y aZUTZ^J Co O JLt^S — : ~]b Lu- o'Ttrr ^*i
c-i '1^ ff"32n ” ^ t~"'
jU-,,fet.~ «^ce. c./e~ e~-— ■£ ~
tL iCUprt^. uu-Ow >X. -Jp> « v*.e~*-r-
LU <^2£~, - -£-* ^'“T* o-gfr
VJ _,. > — -V
o (Uw' CX» '■S ja_c^.<J i
-tnu utx^*^ cU’"1*' wc^~
[L-fcz, p-A .<Uo'— =— r^ ^
, -! — ^ ZPT..
,-rCtr e^^ETvc ~
g+CZZJl- eL^-O— ~fU. 1*^^
Serial No .MZ#.
Filed V
^ .
- 'UtHZ2^ ■<?..._ .
Examiner’s Room No
_ '. / ■ : .
1^ Assignee .
um fiAssyt Exec.:.....: . .
©a ■ 1 Patent No .
. Tb!..
li’fcg;
18...
•C ,I.Jj . . . t&j'fy'.JfjfoyL 20 . : . ....^..;....:::1.......
21.... . . . . • '/ fy
22 . : . ;;..>:.i..^.!;
. f£%Gd£.\.S.6?..^r.. k.izr 23 . . .., ...*‘.<™.J’...„. . ...',.
t9:^hi^^hu. . .....R.f: 24 . • > V'*
1 ()' . . . ... 5?fi ..../. ^ o . <? 25 . . .^.i. '/'•'•• '
26 . ....J.....L . ! . ....,...., >/
'•& . •■•'• . . 27 . 1 . i,l..A£...:.£ .........
FRANK L. DYER, ,
*
LAW OFFICES.
oK
DYER, EDMONDS & DYER.
patents anD patent Causes.
■n
Petition.
Zo the (Commissioner of (patents :
YOUR petitioner THOMAS A. EDISON, a citizen of the
United States, residing and having his post office address
at Llewellyn Park, Orange, in the County of Essex and State
of New Jersey,
PRAYS THAT LETTERS PATENT MAY BE GRANTED TO HIM FOR THE IMPROVE¬
MENT IN SEPARATING OR GRADING APPARATUS (Case no. 1089)
SET FORTH IN THE ANNEXED SPECIFICATION ; AND HE HEREBY APPOINTS DYER, EDMONDS
AND DYER, REGISTRATION NO. 2588 (A FIRM COMPOSED OF RICHARD N. DYER, SAMUEL
O. EDMONDS AND FRANK L. DYER), OF NO. 31 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK CITY, HIS
ATTORNEYS, WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION AND REVOCATION, TO PROSECUTE
THIS APPLICATION, TO MAKE ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THEREIN, TO RECEIVE
THE PATENT, AND TO TRANSACT ALL
THEREWITH.
SPECIFICATION.
I!.,,
TO ALL WHOM IT KAY CONCERN;
Be It known that I, THOMAS A. EDISON, a oitizen of
the United States, residing at Llewellyn Park, Orange, County
of Essex and State of New Jersey, have invented a certain
new and useful IMPROVEMENT IN SEPARATING OR GRADING APPARATUS I,
of whioh the following is a specif ioatlons-
| My invention relates to improvements in apparatus
for use particularly in the manufacture of cement and de¬
signed for the separation of the sufficiently fine particles
from the coarser partlolee of pulverized cement and cement
mixtures. The type of apparatus is one in which the sepa¬
ration Is effaoted by means of an air blast so regulated and
applied that the sufficiently fine and light particles will
be oarried by the blest into a settling chamber, from which
they are withdrawn either continuously or intermittently,
the heavier and coarser particles being substantially un¬
affected by the draft and passing immediately, out of its '
influence for return to the grinding apparatus, where, a
further pulverization of the coarser particles takes place.
Although -the -attempt has been made to commercially
operate separators by means of air blasts, the devices here¬
tofore proposed for the purpose have been unsatisfactory in
practice for the reason that the pressure and velocity of thn
blest or blasts of air have been so affected by atmospheric
conditions as to pressure, and otherwise as to make Impossi ¬
ble a sufficiently aoourate sorting or grading of the pul¬
verulent material. With my improved apparatus no difficul¬
ties of' this kind are encountered, for the reason that the
settling. chamber and oonduits through which the air passes
-1-
are completely iaolated from outside Influenoea, bo as to lie
absolutely unaffeotod by atmospheric changes however severe.
For this reason with ray apparatus the air blasts may bo al¬
ways kept approximately constant, both in. velocity and pres¬
sure at all times, thereby permitting a very aoourate and
uuiforra separation of the finer particles to bo effected
throughout the entire operation.
In apparatus heretofore suggested for grading pul¬
verulent materials by means of air blasts, the fine parti-
oles have been generally permitted to fall vertically and
substantially perpendicularly through the blast, so that the
effeot of the blast is merely to alter the trajectory of the
falling partioles to a greater or less extent according to
the fineness of the latter. Owing to the relative ease
with which the trajectory of a falling body way be changed,
the resulting grading operation has been always unsatisfac¬
tory, sinoe the separated finer partioles differ very con¬
siderably in size. In. my present apparatus I overoome
this defect hy causing the pulverised material to be di¬
rected into the blast in such a way that the finer particles,
in order to bo separated from the coarser partioles, require
to be projected against the force of gravity, so that only
the extremely light partioles will be separated. My Inven¬
tion therefore oonsists of an improved separating or grading
apparatus possessing the characteristics referred to, and it
also oonsists in various details of construction and ar¬
rangement, all as will be more fully hersinof ter described
and claimed.
In order that the invention may be better under¬
stood, attention is dlredtad to the accompanying drawings
forming part of this specification, and in which figure 1 ie
a side view of my improved apparatus in its preferred form,
-3-
illustrating the settling chambers as being arranged in two
banka j figure 2 a aeotion on the line 2—2 of f figure 1,
showing a single eleotrio motor for driving tho fanB of two
separators 5 figure 3 an enlarged aeotion through one of the
fans and air ducts, showing a part of ono of tho settling
ohambers; figure 4 a section on tho lino 4—4 of figure 3,
illustrating particularly the manner of .removing the deflect-'
ing boards; figure 5 on enlarged view illustrating the man¬
ner of adjusting the deflecting boards; figure 6a section
on tho line 6—6 of figure 5; figure 7 ou enlarged diagram¬
matic view illustrating the deflecting boards over which the
material travels when being acted upon by the blaBts, and
showing by arrows tho direction of the blasts; and figure 8
an enlarged sectional view through two of the fans, showing
a single motor for driving the same.
1,1 represent vertical settling chambers of any de¬
sired size, having hopperlike bottoms 2, through which pass
screw conveyors 3 for of footing & constant removal of tho
partiolee which settle in the bottom of tho chambers. Bach
settling chamber may bo, and preferably is, made of a light
metal framework covered with canvas or similar textile fab¬
ric, Whereby a very light and cheap construction is secured.
Leading out of eaoh of the settling chambers at its upper
end are two air duets or conduits 4, 4, made also preferably
of a light metal frame covered with canvas, and each of those
ducts at its lower end connoetc with the inlet pipe S of an
ordinary blower or centrifugal fen 6. Tho two blowers 0 oi
adjacent separators are mounted on a common shaft 7 (see
figures 2 and 8) and driven through gearing 8 from a motor
9, preferably an eleotrio motor. By enploying an eleotrio
motor, its speed can bo readily controlled, thereby allowing
for an ooourate regulation of the draft so as to make it
possible to sequre any desired degree of fineness in the re- -
- — —-8-. , _ . . _ ...
stitutes a horizontal metallic boxlike structure leading di¬
rectly Ijito tho Battling chamber (sea figure 3). A part of
the bottom of this discharge duet is formed of ijivoted slats
11* vfoioh in figure 3 are shown as being open, although it
will be understood that normally these slats are maintained
in a horizontal position to olose and preserve the continuity
of the duct at its bottom. The slats 11 are operated by a
single lever 12. Within the discharge duet 10 of eaoh fan
are deflecting boards or partitions arranged in two series
13 and 14. The two sets of deflecting boards or partitions
are arranged as a whole preferably slightly out of the ver¬
tical, and the setB are so disposed relatively to each other
that the material introduced at the top is eaused to partake
of a zigzag path in passing downwardly, as shown in dotted
lines in figure 7. The air from the fans 6 follows the
oouraes indicated by the arrows, being deflected downwardly
by the partitions 13 so as to pass directly through the mate*
rial as it flows off of the edges of those partitions onto
the partitions 14 and vioo versa. The difeotion of the air
blastB is changed by the partitions 14, the blasts being de¬
flected slightly upwards out of tho horizontal, so as to
carry the fine particles into the settling chambers against
the attraction of gravity. Preferably the deflecting
boards or partitions 13 and 14 are secured to angles 16
pivoted to plates’ 16 and 17 respectively by pivots 18. Each
of the angles Is provided with a slot 19 near one end with
which a bolt 20 engages, so that the angles can be adjusted
to suit the requirements of use. The plates 16 and 17 car¬
rying the two sets of defies ting boards are removably oarrle l
by the Bides 21 of the discharge duot 10, so as to be bodily
removable thorefrom, as shown. In this way the deflecting
-4-
boards can be adjusted outside of the apparatus and then in¬
troduced in position. The pulverised material is fed to
the deflecting boards by means of a roller-feed 22 arranged
in a chamber 23 and supplied from a trough 24 in vdiloh works
a soraper conveyor 25 of any desired type. Bach of the
roller-feeds 22 is preferably driven from the fan shaft 7
by intermediate gearing, as shown, whereby the speed of the
roller-feed will vary proportionately to the velocity of the
blast. Thus when the blast 1b increased to thereby augment
the pressure and result in the separation of the heavier par¬
ticles, the load of material supplied by the roller-feeds
will be proportionately increased, so that the maximum duty
may at all times be imposed upon the blast. The deflecting
boards or partitions 13 and 14 extend at their lower endB
into % hopper 2G formed at the bottom of the discharge duot
10, and from this hopper leads a closed ohute 27 to a con¬
veyor 28 of any suitable type, a belt conveyor being shown
for the purpose of illustration. The oonveyor 28 returns
the rejected coarser particles to the grinding apparatus, in
which the coarser particles arc reground. A hopper 29 is
mounted below tho pivoted slats 11 and connects with the
chute 27 to permit any material which may aooumulate on the
bottom of the discharge duot 10 to be returned to the con¬
veyor 28. Preferably the lower portion of each of the con¬
duits 4 is hinged at 30 (see^figire^Oj^BO that the lbwer
1 portion*may^ bo swung outwardly^to disoloso the inlet to the
fan and perralt the latter to be oleaned or repaired or any
f oreigntB.^b Btonae removed therefrom.
-'•'-The operation is as follows:- Pulverised material
Ib supplied to the several roller-feeds 22, and by each of
the roller-feeds is fed in .a uniform wide but very thin
stream onto the defleotingboarde 13 and 14, down whioh the
material passes in a zigzag bourse. Tho fans 6 being opera-
_ ^ _ . . . . . . . -.8- . _ . . . ..... V:
ted, air is forced through the discharge ducts 10, and by th<
deflecting hoards 13 is divided into a plurality of downward¬
ly projected blasts. Those blasts pass through the stream
of falling material, and their direction is changed so as to
carry off the sufficiently fine particles into the settling
ohombers against the attraction of gravity, whereby a very
uniform separation of the extremely fine particles is secur¬
ed. Owing to the relatively large area of the settling
chambers, the pressure of the blasts is reduced, so that the
fine partloles are permitted to settle into the hopperlike
bottom 2, from whioh they are removed to a suitable stock
house or elsewhere by the oonveyors 3.' Air for supplying
the fans is taken from the settling ohaniberB as shown, so
that a constant circulation of air is maintained in the ap¬
paratus. In this way the apparatus is entirely independent
of outside influences, and the blasts remain constant in pres¬
sure and velooity irrespective of atmospheric ohanges. The
coarser and heavier partioleB whioh are not affeoted by the
blasts pass into the oonduit 2? and are returned by the con¬
veyor 28 to the grinding apparatus. Prom time to time the
Blatted bottom 11 of the discharge duct 10 may be opened to
permit partioleB accumulated therein to be returned by the
conveyor 28 for rogrinding.
Having now described my invention, what I claim is:'
1. An\improved apparatus for effecting the separar
tion of finer from coarser partioleB in ground material,
comprising in combination a settling ohamberAa fan having
its discharge. duct ueading into the settling chamber, de¬
vices for oausing a Relatively thin stream of pulverized
material to pasB downvardly across the dlsohargwduct so as
to bo acted on by the air currents therein, and an air duet
-6-
-v
connecting the settling chamber^ with the Inlet to the fan,
substantially as set forth.
. An improved apparatuik for effeoting the separa¬
tion of finer from coarser partloles^in ground material,
ooraprlsingXin combination a settling chamber, a fan having
its di schargev duot leading into the settling chamber, de¬
vices for o’ausing a relatively thin strewn of, pulverized mo-
terial to pas.p downwardly across the discharge duot so as to
be acted on by\th'e air currents therein, and Vn air duot
connecting the Battling ohaniber at its upper eWd with the
inlet to the fan,\substantially as set forth.
3. An improved apparatus for effecting the sepa¬
ration of finer from coarser partioles in ground material,
oomprising in combination a settling chamber, I a fan having
two inlets with its discharge dutt leading inlo the settling
ohamber, devices for oausing a relatively thin\streara of pul
verized material to pass downwardly across the discharge
duct so as to be acted, on by the air currents therein, and
separate air ducts connecting the settling chamber with the
inlets to the fan, substantially as apt forth. '
An improved apparatus for effecting the sepa¬
ration of finer from tfoarBer partioles lnVround material,
oomprising in combination a settling charnbet, a fan having
its discharge duot loading Into the settling Nohamber, de¬
vices for oausing a relatively thin stream of Vulverized
naterial to pass downwardly across the disoharg\duot t
to he aoted on by the air currents therein, and an^air duet
having-a-pivoied-s eotion) oonneo tt^ng the settling chamber
with the inlet to the fan .^substantially as set forth.
6. \ An improved apparatus ypr effecting \fche sepa¬
ration of finer from coarser particles in ground material,
)omprising in\combination a plurality of settling Chambera,
corresponding fans having their discharge duots leading in¬
to We settliig ohamhers, a\oonraon motor for operating said
fans\devioes for oausing a relatively thin stream of pulver¬
ised material to pass downwardly aorosB oaoh diooh^S0 duo,fc
oo as mo he noted on hy the air. currents therein, 'and air
duotB opnneoting the settling oiipiriberB with the inlets to
the respective fans, substantially as Bet forth.
e\ An improved apparatus'vfor effecting the sepa¬
ration of finer from ooarBer particles in ground material,
oompriB ing\in combination a settlingAohamber, a fan having ;
its discharge duct leading into the settling eltamber; a
regulable motmir for operating said fan; and devioes operated
hy the motor for causing a relatively thin stream of pul¬
verized material to pass downwardly across the disoharge
duet bo as to be acted on by the air ourhentB therein, .sub¬
stantially as forth. 1
An improved apparatus for effecting the sepa¬
ration of finer fromaearser partioles in ground material,
Comprising in oomhination a settling ohamber, a fan having
its disoharge duot laading\lnto the settling ohamber, a roll¬
er-feed for oausing a relatively thin stream of pulverized
material to pass downwardly e
i the disoharge duot so as
to be aoted on by the air ourrents\therein, and a regulable
motor for /'operating- -th^fan-anA-rollehs^feod, Substantially
as set ~
i /oi S. An 'iiinqp roved apparatus for effecting the sepa¬
ration of finer from coarser partioles limground material,
oompriBing in combination a Bottling ohamner, a fan having
its disoharge duot leading into the settling ohamber, two
BetB of deflecting, boards or partitions inttthe discharge
duot, moans for feeding a relatively thin stream of pul¬
verized material toi the deflecting boards, and an air duot
connecting 1 the settling chamber with the inlet to the fan,
substantially aa se_t ^orth. \
An improved apparatus for Wf acting the Wpa-
ratiori\of finer from o career particles Mi ground material,
oorapristog in combination a settling chamber, a fan Haling
its diaonjarge duct leadln^Xinto the settlirtk chamber, rc-
| movable defleo ting boards oXpartitions oarriW within \he
diaohargo d^et of the fan, arid means for foedlhg a relative¬
ly thin Btream of pulverized material to the deflecting
hoards or partitions, substantially as set forth.
$ Kf. Arkimp roved apparatus for effecting the sepa¬
ration of finer fnnn ooarser particles in ground material,
comprising in combination a settling chamber, a fan having
its discharge duct leading into the settling chamber, ad¬
justable deflecting boards or partitions oarried within the
discharge duot of the fan, lwid means for feeding a relative¬
ly thin stream of pulverized material to the deflecting
boards or partitions, substantially as set forth.
li. An improved apparatus for effecting the sepa¬
ration of finer from Viarser particles in ground material,
comprising in combination a settling chamber, a fan having
its disoharge duct leading\into the settling ohamhor, re¬
movable and adjustable deflating hoards or partitions oar¬
ried within the disoharge duot wC the fan, and means for
feeding a relatively thin stream orspulverized material to
the defleoting boards or partitions, nh^st antially ns Bet
forth.
Ifl.' A duct for oonvdylng dust -laden air currents,
oompris in® a frame arid a oovering of textile material there¬
for, substantially as\set forth^
f
□ ESCRIBED AND CLAIMED IN THE ANNEXED SPECIFICATION! THAT HE DOES NOT
KNOW AND DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THE SAME WAS EVER KNOWN OR USED BY OTHERS
N THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF;
OR PATENTED OR DESCRIBED IN ANY PRINTED PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA OR ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY BEFORE HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF,
OR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THIS APPLICATION! OR IN PUBLIC USE OR ON
SALE IN THE UNITED STATES FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THIS APPLICATION,
AND THAT NO APPLICATION FOR PATENT UPON SAID INVENTION HAS BEEN FILED BY
HIM OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OR
THAN SEVEN MONTHS PRIOR TO THE FILING
SWORN
SUBSCRIBED BEFORE
f
Department of the Interior,
SERIES OF 1900.
\ The papers arc duly filed, and your application for a patent will be taken
" up for examination in its order _ _
You will be duly advised of the examination.
Very respectfully,
BSP If payment is made by oheok or draft, the credit granted i
. (M~360-
i States Patent Of.fice,
Thomas A. Edison |
Caro Pyer, Rdmonds. A Dyer,
D. S, PAfK'iT OFFICE:"'
FEB 1 7 1903
® p -Plcasi 'fttld .'below, a. vompvnnibdt ion from ■ the, EX A Ml fig g iy^liargc ojjij/om; • -application,
#138,488, filed Jan. ft, 1903, for ,8eparatirig or Grading Apparatus.
Claim 1 is rejeoted in view of JJ67i3g9r--White* Hov. 14, 1888,
Chop Graders* Shaking Bolts.
Claim 8 is rejeoted in view of White* oited.
Claim S failB to express anything distinct. over White, cited.
See fin.: 4 showing inlets on both sides of the fan. The claim is
met in substance in 4S5(V$40, Wolf, June 30, 1801, Chop Graders*
Gravity, the relocation of the fan being a fomal ohanga.
Claim 4 is rejected in view of 458,011* Whitmore, Aug. 86,1891,
Chop Graders, Gravity, and any instance of a detachable blast conduit
- 33,448, Dyer, June 17, 1868, Grain Separators, Gravity, R.
Claim B is rejeoted in view of 168,166* Bownton* April 80* 1878
Chop Graders, Gravity, showing a plurality of separators with fans
driven from a ooramon souron of power.
Claim 6 is rejeoted in view of Down ton and any instance of a
. feeder .driven from the same source as. the fan — 494,800, fiohnnaker,
April 4, .1893, Chop Graders, Gravity.
Claim 7 is rejected on the references for olaim.6. It is too
common to provide regulating means for the mot of e or engines employed
to drive separators, to leave any room for invention in the mere
use of any type of regulable motors for suoh purpose.
Claim 8 is rejeoted in view of White or Wolf , cited.
Claim 9 is rejected as destitute, of invention in view of Whit¬
more, oited. Removability ner se oannot impart patentability* but
Case,No,..V^.... Paper No . /
Bdlaon - 2 #138,428
aae 402,440, HaftRonraaoher, April 30, 1089 , Chop Graders, Gravity.
01dm 10 fail a to diatinffuiah paientably over Whitmore, cited,
in view of whioh it ia rejeoted.
Claim 11 la re j noted in view of 483,843, Shelley, Deo. 22, 1891,
Chop Graders, Gravity, fi<j. 3.
Claim 12 la rejeoted in view of #349,329, Lord, Sept,. 14,1886,
Ore and Ooalj Separators, Dry, and 233,375, Richards, Oot. 19,1880,
Chop Gr'ad.era, Gravity. .
Examiner,
Division xxv.
CaseNo..^...PaP«':No--^
UNITED; STATES PATENT OPPICE.
Thos. A.Edison,
Separat i ng and Gra di ng
Apparatus ,
Piled January 9,1903,
Serial No. 138,420.
Room No. 243.
Hon. Commissioner of Patents,
Sir:-
Please amend as afollows:-
Cancel Claims 1 and 2 and subs tit ute :-
1. \An improved apparatus for effecting the separa¬
tion of- finerVfrom coarser particles in ground material,
comprising ini 'combination, an up right settling chamber,
a fan mounted exteriorly.., of the settling chamber, a sub-
stantialyhorizontal discharge-duct leading from the fan in¬
to the settling chamber, devices for causing a relatively
thin stream of pulverized material to pass downwardly acrosE
the diBcharge-duct so ks to be acted on by the air currents
therein, and an alr-dpcA connecting the settling- chamber
with the inlet to the fan\whereby a continuous circulation
of air wiirl be maintained from the fan to the settling
chamber and vioe versa, substantially as set forth. ^
2. An improved appamtus for effecting the separa¬
tion of finer from coarser panticles in ground material,
comprising In' combination, an upright settling ohamber,
a fan mounted exteriorly,' of tha settling ohamber, a sub¬
stantiality-horizontal dlsoharge-dudt leading from the fan in¬
to the settling chamber^ devices for causing a relatively
thin stream of pulverized material \o pass downwardly across
the discharge-duct so as to acted on \y the air currents
1. .
therein, and an air- duct connected with the upper end of
the settling chamber with the inlet to the fan whereby a
continuous circulation of air will be maintained from the
fan to the settling chamber and vloe .versa, substantially
as set forth.
'Erase Claims' 5 and 6 and substitute
5. Arts. improved apparatus for effecting the seppxa-
ti-on_of finer from coarser particles in ground material,
comprising in combination two vertical settling chambers
arranged side by side ^corresponding fans arranged Bide by
side exteriorly of the settling chambers, a discharge-duot
extending from each of saidSfans to’ its respective settling!
chamber, a common motor. jnounteti between said fans for simul¬
taneously operating the same , devices for causing a rela¬
tively thin strewn of pulverised material to pass downward¬
ly across each discharge-duot so as to acted on by the
air currents therein, and air-duct s. connecting each settling|
chamber with the inlet to its respective fan whereby air
currents v/ill be maintained continuously between Nihe fans
and settling chambers and vice versa, substantially as sei
forth.
Change the numeral of Claim 7 to 6.
Erase Claim 8 and substitute:-
7. An improved apparatus for effecting the separa¬
tion of finer from coarser particles in ground material,
comprising in combination a vertical settling chamber, a
fan having its discharge-duot leading Into the said settling
chamber, two sets of deflecting boards or partitions in the
discharge-duot afrangedVn two inclined hanks therein where! y
the air passing through the same will be deflected downward¬
ly and then upwardly, meansNf or feeding a relatively thin
stream of pulverised materialN^o the deflecting boards so
as to be aoted upon by the air tmrrents between the defleot-
2.
Ing 'boards and an' air-duct connecting the settling chamber
with the inlet to the fan, substantially as set forth.
Cancel Claim 9.
Change the numerals of Claims 10 and 11 to 8 and
9 respectively.
Erase Claim. IS. .
A reconsideration of Claims 3, 4, 0, 6 and 9 is
respectfully requested. These claims are all limited to
special combinations of elements which combinations are not
present in the references cited. For instance concerning
the third, the White patent does not show separate air-
duots connecting the settling chamber with the inlets to
the fans, but the fans appear tobe mounted directly in the
settling chamber. The .same is true with the patent to Wolf,
Concerning the. fourth claim, the patent to Dyer does not
show an air-duct with a pivoted section but the whole air-
duct appears to be removable. Regarding the sixth (former 7)
claim, while the regulation of the motor per se may not be
patentable, the combination in which a regulable motor is
included as a separate element seems to be new. Concern¬
ing the eighth claim (former 10) applicant does not find
the adjustable deflecting boards in the Whitmore patent nor
does he find the adjustable and removable deflecting boards
in the Shelly patent.
Very respectfully,
Thos. A.Edison,
By
Attorney.
Case/Vo, £o a
"" . '
Orange , N.J.
Deoe.ber 4,1903,
3,
H.H.O.
j»r=e=.
“Tho Commissioner of P
Washington, D. C.’
^3 v"_
department of the interior,
United States Patent Office,
Washington, d. c.,
January fi, 19<W.
Thomas A. Mi non,
Carn Prank I>. Hyer, JAN 6 1S04
' orange, IT. J. j
Please' find below a communication from the EXAMINER in charge of your, application,
#138,438, -f.13.ort J an, 9, 1903, for Separating or Grading Apparatus.
Commissioner of. Patents,
Casa aB amended Deo. B, 1903, further considered.
Claim 1 la rejected as squarely mat In 367,389, Whit, a of rec¬
ord. In t,hia (fig. 3) la shown a fan, a pannage leading therefrom
and delivering its blast, through the thin at, ream of material from t ha
hopper Pj a nettling oh amber formed by the partitlona P, I., the board
i and the top of the oanlng; and a pannage back t,o the fan. :■ The
olalm in substantially mat also in Shumaker of record.
Claim 3 is rajaotad an destitute of indention in view of the
references for olnim 1.
Claim 3 is rej noted in view of Bhflmaker of record, in which
are shown two return passages J, J, to, the fan. .
Claim 4 dintinguishes from Bhumaker substantially only *r to
the pivoted section of fine. The purpose of pivoting this neotion
is to penait aooenn to the fan, and inanmuoh an it in old to provide
doors tp permit access to the interior of an air passage or fan (nna
X of 616,189, Huntley, Ceo. 30, 1098, drain Separators, Gravity, R)
the pivoting of a portion of applicant's flue must be held to be a
mere shop expedient, not involving invention. Claim 4 is therefore
rejected in view of Shumaker and Huntley. Applioant is required to
illustrate the pivotal oonneotions and Joints more clearly..
Claim B is for a mere duplication of separators operated by a
fit
- -SdiBon - 8 #138,488
common motor. if, in raj eoted An view of Shumaker and 3.(58,3.88,
Downton, of reoord.
I Claim 6 1b rejected An view of Shumaker. While Shnenaker floes
I not show tha regulation of the feed-roller' a spaed, this As Amp3,ied
^ j in a measure from tha faot that, mills are generally dr Aran by engine
i or of, bar equivalent power whioh a r« practically AnvarAab3,y provided
I with spa ad vary Ann means. fjertainlyno invention As involved An
the regulation of the speed of the various parts of a machine of thi
type. Applionnt does not show the moans for varying the speed of
his motor.
Claim 7 is rejected An view of White or Rhuaroaker, and 835,048,
Holt, Aug. 38, 1894, Chop Graders, Gravity* o fif'd d of Holt antioi-
; pate applicant* s defleotors. '•>
Claim 8 is rejected An view of Whits or Rhusmakar, and 388,954, >
,T;.^vM j3eBBer, April HR, 1883, Chop Graders, Gravity} or Hoe, Aug.
^• v28, 1894,ibt.e)rafia^iroalfc SeparAtors, pry. ,
> Claim 9 is rejected upon the references for o3.alr« 8. t
m ^
|5: v;:'. V . :
35xarainer,
Hi. via ion 7X7
UHITED STATES PATENT OFFICE.
Thomas A. Edison,
Improvement in Separating or
Grading Apparatus.
Filed January 9, 1903.
Serial No. 138,428.
BOOM NO. 243.
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS:
SIR :■
In accordance vdth the Examiner’s
requirement of January 6th, 1904, please amend Figures 1
and 8 of the drawings in the above entitled case by adding
thereto the parts indicated by pencil in the accompanying
photographic copies, and charge the cost of same to my
account.
Respectfully,
By
Orange, N.J.
August / 1904
' Hir. Attorney^.
j
united states patent oppice.
I Thomas A, Edison,
Improvement in Separating
or Grading Apparatus,
Piled January 9, 1903,
Serial No. 138,428.
ROOM NO. 243.
j HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS:
3 I R:
Replying to office action of January 6,
|| 1904, please amend the above entitled case as follows:
Page 4, line 1, after "product" insert "The motor
control means shown is a rheostat 31 connected in series
J with the field of the motor".
Page 5, line 26 after "outwardly" insert "as indi-
! cated in dotted lines".
Cancel claims 1, 2 and 3.
Claim 4, line 8, oanoel "having a pivoted section"
Same claim, line 9, after "fan" insert pthat~por-
tion of the air duct whioh is adjacent to the fan inlet,
j tein® pivotally supported at a point removed from said in-
I let. "/Renumber this claim as~cl^toTT
Cancel olaim 5.
Claim 6, line 8, cancel "operating the fan and
I roller feed" and insert in place thereof/»driving the fan
and roller feed at any desired speed, the connections -being
such that any increase or diminution of the speed of the faij
is accompanied by a corresponding increase or diminution
in the speed of the roller _ _ _
Renumber this claim as claim 2. Cancel claims 7,
|| 8 and 9, and insert in place thereof, the following claims:
3. An Improved apparatus for effecting the separa¬
tion of finer andxsoarser particles in grtfund material, com¬
prising in oombinatfqn a settling chamber, \a fan having its
discharge duct leading\into the settling chwnber, two sets
of adjustable deflectcngVboards in the discharge duct, wheij-e-
by the air passing through, the same will be deflected
downwardly and then upwardly^ the adjustment of the boards I
of one set being independent of that of the other set, and]
means for feeding a relatively thin stream of pulverized
material to the deflecting boards, substantially as set
forth.
4. An improved apparatus for effecting the separaj
tion of finer and coarser particles in ground material,
comprising in combination a fettling chamber, a fan havingj
its discharge duct leading into the settling chambW,
set of deflecting boards in the ijl scharge duct, and v
port for said boards, said support\being removably seVured]
to the walls of said duct, one of whl^h is apertured to,
permit the longitudinal withdrawal of the boards, suhstan-|
tially as set forth.
Dj An improved apparatus for effecting the sepa¬
ration of finer and coarser particles in ground material,
comprising in combination a settling chamber, a fan having
its discharge duct leading into the settling chamber, a
set of deflecting boards in the discharge duct, and a
support for said boards, said support being removably se¬
ts
cured to one of the walls of said duct and closing an
toe
aperture through which the hoards may longitudinally with¬
drawn, substantially as Bet forth.
. , Js
¥ An improved apparatus for effeoting a separa¬
tion of finer and coarser parti oles in ground material,
comprising in oo&bi nation a settling chamber, a fan havingl
its discharge dust leading into the settling ohamber, a set
in said wall, so as to close the same, substantially as set
REMARKS.
The claims as amended are believed to be patentable
over the references. Claim 2 specifies that the connections
between the fan and roller feed are such that any increase
or diminution in the speed of the fan is accompanied by a
corresponding increase or diminution in the speed of the
roller feed. In the reference there is no such connection,
the speed of the fan being regulated by means of the posi¬
tion of the drive v/heel N, (Figures 1 and 2) while the speed
of the feed roller is not regulable, except as the examiner
suggests, by means of the engine which furnishes the power
for the mill. This means of regulation, however, is not
such as to anticipate the claim, for the reason that such
engines always have other machinery to drive, and it would
be entirely impracticable :rto slow, the engine down in order
to adjust the speed of the feed roller. It might be added,
that the speed of the feed roller could also be regulated
by varying the steam pressure in the boilers, but this ob¬
viously fails as an anticipation of the claims. Applicant
appears to be the first to regulate the speed of the fan
and of the roller feed simultaneously, so that when the fan
runs at a diminished speed, less material will be fed in to
be operated upon.
The drawings have been amended in aocordanoe with
the Examiner's requirements. An allowance is respectfully
solicited.
THOMAS A. EDISON,
By
Orange, N.J.
His Attorney.
August / 1904.
_ _ _ -tOy ,
. {O' <&S>T^Z S<^>
8m: Vis -Jl.
Referring to your order, dated ...
drawing in the application of. .
FVv~—z; ,
/■
F
for Patent for improvement in
filed
r..<&iste&y. .t
.% _ , 190..?, you are advised that the drawing was corrected
and forwarded to the Examiner in charge of the case, on _ 190 Jr** .
By direction of the Commissioner,
Very respectfully,
/^/ 0 /</ J
a.
C^3LL,. 5^ _ j
Chief Clerk. ’
i
i#
Oat* at unM Aug. 2, 1904, further eonsldered.
•' • • ■ ^ v- In
Claim 1 ie ra) voted a> destitute of patentable novelty,, Tie*
of Shumaker of record, and 168,085, Buokvalter, Deo"* 28, 1874,
Hot ary Bolt*. Buekwalter ehowe a hinged aeotion 6 of the eondnlt .
to the fan— aee fig. 2 e ape o tally.
The 2nd olalm Is rejeoted in view of 476,231, Mills, May, 31,
1892, Chop Oraders, Gravity} and British patent 17,887, HenoOh,
Oot. 6, 1892, Ore A Coal, Separators Dry, shoving feed rollers and
: ^^hMrtann operated from a oommon aouroe of pover. The uae of a regulable ;;
motor to drive the shaft furnishing power to both would be a natter
! of aliaple aggregation In view of the every day practice of providing
regulable pover for all types of maohlnery. The aleotrle motor and <«
rheostat are near matters of euoh oommon knowledge that It Is not
thought neoessary to olts an lnstanoe of a suitor and rheostats per S£. :
the 3d olala Is rejeoted upon the ground of new matter in lmply-t -:
log that the boards are adjustable as sets, when applicant has shentt ■;
then as merely Individually adjustable. The olala Is rejeoted ill
i view. of Moo, of reoord, and British patent 8680, Abel, Deo .87, 1881^;
i Chop Oraders, Gravity, shoving dsfleotors adjustable as setsi^or
j, 281,B08, VanGelder, Inly 84, 1883} or 345,177, Rev, July- 6,- 1886,'
Shaking Bolt*, showing mu of individually adjustable deflectors.
t.;.01aima 4, B and ft arc rejeored in view of 380,097, Davis, Waroh
. 27,v.jlft88j Ofaop Oraders, Gravity, whloh shows a support for atssrisf"
of deifiootors which is bodily removable - see fig. a - and 308,628,
Konofc, Sept. 23, 1884, Boreens & Biddles; or 663,634, West, Jan. 28,
1896, Amalgsaat or s , Plate, in whloh doors or removable wall sections
UNITED STATES PATENT OPPICE.
Thomas A. Edison
IMPROVEMENT IN SEPARATING OR
GRADING APPARATUS
Piled January 9, 1903
Serial No. 138,428
Room No. 243
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS
SIR:-
Replying to Office action of September
28, 1904, please amend the above entitled case as follows:
J Cancel claim 1.
Rewrite claim 2 as follows, the numeral being
changed to 1.
A
1. An improved apparatus for effecting the separa¬
tion of finefr‘ from coarser particles in ground material,
comprising in combination a settlfc
.trunk leading thereto, a fan for creating an air current
through Baid blast trunk, a roller feed for oausing a re¬
latively thin stream of pulverulent material to pass down¬
wardly across the blast tnunk, so
the air current theiein^mean^fo'r
K
of the fan so as to produoe any desired strength of air
current^ and connections whereby any increase or diminu¬
tion in the speed of the fan produces a corresponding
inorease or diminution in the speed of the roller feed,
substantially as set forth
Cancel claims 3 and 4.
Claim 5, line 6 after "boards" insert - said
as to ,be acted upon by
'boards being secured at one end to the support and.
^ Claim 6, line 6 after "boards" insert - Bald
boards being secured at one end to the support and.
■- Claim 6 line 7 ohange "said walls" to - the walls
of said duot.
Renumber claims 5 and 6 as 2 and 3 respectively.
REMARKS
Claim 1 as amended clearly distinguishes from the
references. In Patent No. 476,231 and British patent No.
17,827, the strength of the blast is regulated by means of
a valve and no means are provided for controlling the
speed of the fan. It results from this that the faad
roller is always driven at the same Bpeed and supplies
the same quantity of material, regardless of the strength
of the blast. These devices therefore fail to accomplish
the desirable results which are secured by applicant's
construction, whereby as the blast is increased to augment
the pressure, the load of material supplied by the roller
feeds will be proportionately inoreaBed, so that the max¬
imum duty may at all times be imposed upon the blast.
This feature being entirely novel and the claim
being limited thereto, it ie thought that same should be
allowed.
Claims 2 and 3 have been amended to clearly
distinguish from the references. In Patent No. 380,097
a series of deflectprs are mounted to a frame so that they
may all be removed at onoe, but there is no provision whew
by the frame may be readily withdrawn from the blast tube.
In patents Nob. 305,528 and 553,634 the deflect¬
ing boards er screens are not removable longitudinally,
but laterally. Consequently, it is necessary to remove
the entire side of the operating ohamber in order to re-
- 2 -
move the deflectors. Applicant secures his deflectors
at their ends to the support and removes them longitudi¬
nally through a small opening in one of the walls of the
blast tube. This structure is decidedly preferable to
those of the references, and is believed to be patentable.
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS A. EDISON,
By
/Q-zf —
His Attorney.
Orange, N. j.
February 1905.
M.E.O.
2—260.
united states patent ophce.
Thomas A. Edison
IMPROVEMENT IN SEPARATING OR GRADING1:
APPARATUS
Piled January 9, 1903
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS
Replying to Offioa action of April
7, 1905, pleaBe amend the above entitled oaee as followe:
„ V
Page 4, line 1, after "product" and before the
insert of the amendment filed Auguet 8, 1904, insert - _
and all throttling or regulating valves may be dispensed
with - Same line, after "The" insert - valueless
Olaim 1, line 3, before "blast" insert _
single, horizontal, valveless - Same olaim, line 8,
after "therein" insert - defleoting boardB or plates
below the feed opening - Same olaim, line 10, after
■current ■ insert a oomma
I The referenoes fail to show the combination of a
fan and feed roll and means for simultaneously varying
the speed of both. In Patent No. 321,658, oited by the
Examiner, the patentee states - "The force of the air-
ourrents is primarily regulated by the speed and adjust¬
ment of the fans, and seoondarily, by adjustments of the
valves E." This statement evidently means that the driv¬
ing mechanism of the fans is so designed as regards elses
of driving pulleys, else and number of blades of the fans,
©to . , as to produce the maximum blast whioh will be requir¬
ed In the operation of the device , the blast being then
throttled down by valves to produoe weaker air-ourrents .
There is no means for regulating the speed of the fans
after the maohine has been onoe Bet up and the driving
belts plaoed upon driving pulleys. Although figure 2 shows
the shaft of the fan provided with three pulleys of dif¬
ferent size, this arrangement is not for the purpose of
varying the speed of the fan beoause Figure 1 olearly
shows that the smallest pulley is for driving the roller
feed, the middle size pulley for driving the fan G and
the large pulley for furnishing power to the shaft to
whioh it 1b secured. The direotion of travel of the main
driving belt is suoh as to render it impossible for it
to run on the same pulley with either of the other beltB.
It is olear therefore that there is no anticipation of
the claimed structure in this patent. The other references
also fail to anticipate the olaim fot the Bame reason,
namely, no means are shown or suggested for simultaneous¬
ly varying the speed of the fan and roller*. feed.
The reason why applicant is able to diBpenBe
with throttling valves is beoause he uses a single hori¬
zontal blast trunk aoross whioh a relatively thin stream
of pulverulent material passes, and the air current hae
only a single function to perform instead of several func¬
tions as in the grading apparatus of Henooh Ct reoord and
many of the grain or middlings purifiers Bhown in the
references of reoord.
The olaim under consideration has been amended
to more olearly define the structure by whioh one le en¬
abled to dispense with regulating valves; the structure
olaimed is believed to be patentably novel, and an allow-
2.
anoe of the olaim is respectfully solioited.
The last reference, namely, Patent Mo. 402,400,
cited against claims 2 and 3 is believed to fail ae an
anticipation of the olaims since the deflecting board
frames do not slide longitudinally with respect to the
boards, but transversely in the direotion of the guides b,
b', eto. Hone of the references disolose def looting boards
tthioh are removable in a longitudinal direction and sinoe
the claims are limited to this particular oonstruotion
besides other details which are not suggested in any way
by the references, the olaims are believed to be patent-
ably distinguished therefrom. A reconsideration and
allowance of the same is therefore requested.
Orange, Hew Jersey
January*' 4th, ’1906;
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS A. EDISON
His attorney.
I
3.
Case an amended and argued January 5, 1906, further oonsldered.
In Wakeford, of reoord, the speed of the fBn is (with the
•adjustment") the primary faotor in the regulation} and since the feefe
roller is driven from the same,, source, any variation in the fan
speed will result In a corresponding variation in the speed. of.
the feed, roller. It is immaterial whether or not other adjusting
, means are present; the maohine of this reference possesses the
capability forming the basis of the 1st claim. The application ..
of the same adjustment to any of the previously oited references;
e.g., 466,87o, Barnard * Barnard, would meet the 1st claim, which
is rejected upon the two patents noted.
The removability of the deflecting boards, upon whioh the
novelty of the 2nd end 3rd claims must depend, does not appear to
% have any -bearing upon the funotion of the maohine. Hothing mare
appears to be involved than the mere removability of parts of'ithO'
devioe for aooess thereto, and in view of the references of .
especially Monok and ])avis (note that 0 of Davis is stated to b«,
bodily removable,) it does not appear to the examiner to involve t- \ •
invention' or anything more than meohanloal skill, especially when ' -
the, structure conferring removability is merely the same sb is; em¬
ployed In ordinary drawers. The 2nd and 3rd olalms are rejected as
lacking invention over the references of reoord.
Xxamlaer |©iv. XXV .
Address.
yz^i.
■ :f&,
. (Mar^^...
Examiner’s Room No ,...:ss/...^..z4..:...
Filed /J /.fJ3 .
Assignee ... &. ■ . f JL*^
Ass’g’t Exec .l^jo./ixb Recorded Jnfyjt.tfJr.lb Liber ..?/>/ Page &&
... x^ . ,/^/~a . .
Patent No. UP ./ fj±& Issued .
Ill' 13
ACTIONS.
" ~ ~ -■ ■-■ -'• ,/f//3 l(i
:) Zc^/^c.c^Oa/ 1 jQe d , y / ?6 3 ia (^2^jc....k?JJ J.?A f
4 if If a </ 10 sJJ^LfJA
r, /; /ff / 20 U^{^/7^.cf.(£lc C^ ^...LStJa.
0 z2^^r <*£</ ^ 0fsi (Uf.
7 '• <?, .... /£.<? ^22 f£v?x^x /
n 0/ ^.. ^ J1. ^ (sJ-^i/m '^L^^ 9pc^_ z</. //?//. _
/ff37 24.. Clu^^cci^
f, / ffA,<iis . iXiJLtn^jus>l listA* 3 \
. /..f <2 4 20 JcLU-yiu^ff . iv JLi 3/.^//
c/3y /fid C, 20 't^L.itvxJ1 Aol. d<juu S /':■/ f/%.
. ^ ^ ■ /i/£c?.f/.../. fM.Vt . .-&=<./<£. (f/t s
I3y... / fi.fi 4>- . 28 . ($?<?<ia/:. . ^5<"' /fiZ/ffy^
..($sxt<*r!; /.?.// 29 . . . t . V /
■34/m™ . .
FRANK 'L-vOYER^
,.' 'Os^Counsel,
_ _ _ OrangeS&ew Jersey.
|'|,>; 7|., 14
|(' tv, t;, 16
fesi
$SHk -_
August 2, 1911.
V/. S. Mallory, Esq. ,
Edison Portland Cemont Co.,
Stewartsvi lie , IT . J .
My dear Mr. Mallory:
Mr. Edison filed an application on Janu¬
ary 13, 1903, covering improvements in Giant Rolls, wherein
each roll was driven "by a separate motor. Shis ease has now
"boon allowed, all the claims ashed for being allowed, includ¬
ing some additional broader claims that were suggested by Mr.
Hicks. Shis patent when issued will bo very comprehensive
and will, I bolieve, cover all forms of Giant Rolls in which
a separate motor is used for each roll. She final fee
requires to be paid bn or before January 31,. 1912, but it
is generally well to pay the final foe without delay, be¬
cause at any time before tho patent actually issues the
Examiner can call it back to. his room for rejection.
¥ou- spoke to me some time ago about foreign
patents, and it occurs to me that if there is any immedi¬
ate prospect of making anything out of. the foreign rights
it might be worth while to file the patents in some of the
important foreign countrios. If the sale of foreign rights
is purely speculative , I would advise- against going to this
expense, beoause the expense 1b quite high and annual taxes
require to bo paid. If, however, you have negotiations
Mr. W. S. Mallory- 2.
in view that look reasonably hopeful, you might concluao
to do something with the foreign patents.
Of course, tho matter can v;ait until Mr. Edison
returns, subject, however, to the very slight risk of the
case being recallod by tho Examiner for rejection or intor-
forenoo.
Yours very truly,
J?LD/IVAV
General Counsel.
The Edison Crushing Roll Co.
ROCK CRUSHERS
August 3, 1911.
Mr. Trank 1. Dyer,
Legal Department ,
Orange , M. J.
My dear Mr. Dyer:-
Heplying to yourB 2nd, would state that
I am more than pleased that all the claims in the Slant
Boll case which was filed Jan. 13th, 1903, hadtbeen allowed,
and I think it would be wise to pay the final fee immediately
so not to run the risk of the patent being recalled. These
patents are owned by Mr. Edison, so the payment of fee is
up to him, and I would suggest that you give Harry instruc¬
tions to make payment immediately.
The matter of foreign patents we will dis¬
cuss with Mr. Edison on his return. At the present time we
have a negotiation on with a party in Italy, but it has not
yet reached the stage where we can tell whether there are
much prospects of its amounting to anything or not.
Ho doubt some of your boys have reported
the very happy frame of mind Mr. Edison seemed to be in at
the ship yesterday just before Bailing. I really think that
he was glad to get away and get a rest, and I hope and
believe it will do him a lot of good.
Yours very truly,
_ TOM-EBB _ ,, _
-74+M^ & 'tfezy 7 Vf
/H?//«^/Z
V\
August 21, 1911.
W. S. Mallory, Esq. ,
Edison Portland Cemont Co. ,
Stewartsville , II. J.
My dear Mr. Mallory:
Please pardgn my oversight in negleoting
ttr acknowledge receipt of yours of the 3rd inst. , which
appears to have heen misplaced among my papers.
I did not make it clear that if we should pay the
final fee on the Giant Roll application with independent
motors and the patent should issue it would then he too
late to apply for foreign patents. If, therefore, it is
probable that Mr- Edison might desire foreign patents, the
question of paying the final fee on the U. 8. application
should bo deferred until he oah decide the question. How¬
ever, if the Giant Holla .with independent motors have been
described in publications in this country so as to be a
matter of public knowledge, that fact would be sufficient
to invalidate any foreign patents that might be granted
provided the evidence were brought out in defense. If,
therefore, these rolls have been1 described and it is reason¬
ably certain that the faot would be known to any possible
infringers in foreign countries or be known to people who
might buy the patents and therefore put them on their guard
17. S. Mallory, Esq.- 2.
as to their value , 1 see no necessity for waiting any longer
in paying the foe on the U. S. case.
Another point that ooours to me is that if these
rolls havo boon described in printed publications and not¬
withstanding this fact you should go ahead and take out for¬
eign patents, then any people that you sola the Rights to
might havo ground for a suit on the theory that you had
sola them an invalid patent. They might tales this posi¬
tion if the enterprise did not turn out profitably. If
there is a likelyhooa of this situation arising, it might
bo wiser to attompt to negotiate any foreign rights entirely
independent of patontB, because to soil an invalid patont
in a foreign country might seriously complicate the entire
situation.
Yours very truly,
FL3/ 1 1717 Gonoral Counsel.
jMjL
TRe Edison Portland Cement Co.
-raph, Freight and Passenger Station, NEW VILLAGE, N. J.
p. o, address. STEWARTSVILLE, N. J.
AugUBt 24, 1911.
Mr. *rank L. Uyer,
Edison Laboratory,
Orange, N. J.
Dear Mr. Dyer:-
Bep lying to yours 21st, relative to
payment of the final fee on the Giant Roll application
with independent motors, would state that there have
already been some publications covering the operation
of the Rolls with independent motors.
I am enclosing a copy of a paper read
by Mr. Mason in June, 1911, before the American Society
or Mechanical Engineers, and you will note on pages 427
and 428 that reference is made to motor driven Rolls, and
there have been other publications which I am unable to
locate at this writing.
Under these circumstances, it would
seem wise to arrange to pay the final fee promptly. In
case there is any danger of having the patent issued owing
to the delay, my judgment would be to pay the final fee
immediately. However, if you think it 1b wiser to wait
until Mr. Edison' 8 return, such action will be quite
agreeable to me.
Yours very truly.
WSM-HBS
President
EI7CL0SUBE:- 1
57. S. Mallory, Esq.,
Edison Portland Cement Co. ,
Stcwartsvid lo , II. J.
Soar Mr. Mallory:
^^Iburs of tho 24th inst. has boon received,
accompanying Mr. Mason' 3 paper, and upon looking it over 1
find that the reference to the idea of a separate motor for
driving each roll is so indefinite that 1 do not think this
particular paper could he considered as a prior publication
that would injure our ohanees of securing valid foreign
patents. You say, however, that there are other publica¬
tions describing these roll3, and perhaps with these the
case will be different. At any rate, unless we are sure
that there has been a complete and full disclosure of this
particular invention in some printed publication I believe
it would be well to wait until Mr. Edison returns so that
he can decide whether or not to do -anything with foreign
applications.
Yours very truly.
EID/IW57
General Counsel.
Deoember 6, 1911,
Mr. Dyer:-
Mr. Edison's application for Improvements in
Giant Rolls, Eolio 34, was allowed July 31, 1911, and the
final fee should be paid before January 31, 1912. The
divisional application on the means for unloading and
dumping the skips has been filed, so that the application
is in condition for the payment of the final fee at any
time now.
The attaohed correspondence indicates that you
had it in mind to take up the question of foreign appli¬
cations with Mr. Edison before paying the final fee on
this application.
jh
\7 ' ^ ’ n '
fey cnZ ! . v >
^ I i - h f-
A-*c- /«rr ><) < •
Applicant.
Address.
Petition
Zo the Commissioner of patents :
YOUR petitioner , THOMAS A. EDI SO!?, a citizen of the United
States, residing .and having hi3 post office address at Llewellyn
Park, Orange, in the County of Essex and State of New Jersey,
PRAYS THAT LETTERS PATENT MAY BE GRANTED TO HIM FOR THE IMPROVE?, 113117 IH
STORAGE BATTERS’- CHARGING APPARATUS $Casa No . 1100)
SET FORTH IN THE ANNEXED SPECIFICATION; AND HE HEREBY APPOINTS DYER AND DYER
(A FIRM COMPOSED OF RICHARD N. DYER AND FRANK L. DYER), OF NO. 31 NAS8AU STREET,
NEW YORK CITY, HIS ATTORNEYS, WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION AND REVOCATION,
TO PROSECUTE THIS APPLICATION, TO MAKE ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THEREIN,
TO RECEIVE THE PATENT, AND TO TRANSACT ALL BUSINESS IN THE PATENT OFFICE CON¬
NECTED THEREWITH.
SPECIFICATION.
TO ALL WHOM IT KAY CONCERN:
Be it known that I, THOMAS A. EDISON, a citizen of
the United States, residing at Llewellyn Park, Orange, Essex
County, State of How Jersey, have invented a certain new
and useful IMPROVEMENT IN STORAGE BATTERY CHARGING APPARA¬
TUS, of which the following is a Bpec if ic'ation: -
Wjr invention relates to improved apparatus for
oharging storage batteries, and my object is to provide an
apparatus for the purpose adapted particularly for oharging
storage batteries in private residences, for isolated
lighting, or for the propulsion of automobiles. A suitable
apparatus for this purpose should be extremely simple, so
as not to require expert attention. For this reason,
steam-engines are impracticable. Although the modern in¬
ternal combustion gasoline engine presents in a very simple
and compact form a satisfactory motor for the operation of
a generator for oharging storage batteries, the necessity
for the use of gasoline makeB such an apparatus extremely
dangerous, so that the rate of fire insurance is prohibit¬
ively high. With my present apparatus, I make use of an
internal combustion engine of any suitable type, and there¬
fore secure all the advantages due to the simplicity and
efficiency of these engines, while at the same time I dis¬
pense entirely with the necessity for using a highly in¬
flammable concentrated fuel like gasoline.
In carrying my invention into effect, I employ an
internal combustion engine for driving a generator which
ohargos the storage batteries, and I supply to the engine
an explosive gaseous mixture consisting of atmoBpherio air
-1-
and cartoon monoxide, the latter toeing produced in a very
Dimple form of generator, preferatoly toy the incomplete com-
toustion of charcoal. Preferatoly the limited air Bupply
furnished to the gas generator is first saturated with water
vapor, aB I shall hereafter describe, whereby the efficiency
of the apparatus is materially increased. An ash-separator
is interposed between the gas generator and the engine, bo
as to separate and cause the deposit of any fine partioles
of solid matter which may become entrained with the gas,
thus preventing any dogging or obstruction of the engine
valves from this cause. The exhaust from the engine leads
to a large drum or receptaole, whioh acts ftot only as a
muffler tout also as a heater for the room in which the ap¬
paratus is located, and from this receptacle the products
of combustion pass to a suitable stack or flue. In this
way, I not only derive energy from the gas, due to its ex¬
plosion in the engine cylinder, tout effectively utilize the
same for heating purposes.
Owing to the convertibility of the electrical gen¬
erator, I first operate the same as a motor receiving cur¬
rent from the storage batteries, and- thus start the engine
in operation. As soon rb the latter oommenoea its proper
cycle, due to the eaq>losion of successive charges of the ex-
plosive mixture in its cylinder, the load ia immediately as¬
sumed; the motor begins then to operate as an electric gen¬
erator, and the current thus generated charges the storage
batteries.
In this way I secure a very simple , cheap , eff i¬
cient and s.afe device for the purpose, and one whioh can
toe operated by any unskilledpersoi}, since all that is re¬
quired to start the apparatus is to first charge the gas
generator with charooal or other fuel, start contouBtion
therein, and then elose the switch to oonneot the eleotrio.
cal generator with the storage battery. The device
then operate automatically to generate current until all the
fuel hae been consumed.
In order that the invention may be better under¬
stood, attention is directed to the accompanying drawing,
showing a diagrammatio view of the preferred apparatus.
The gas generator is provided with a oast-iron shell
1 having a flrebriok lining 2, a grate or grid 3, a fuel
hopper 4, and a paoked door 6 through whioh fuel 1b intro¬
duced. leading from the hopper 4 is a pipe 6 connected
with a ohamber or vessel 7 into which extends a pipe 8, as
shown, so as to form an ash separator. A screw cap 9 may
be provided at the bottom of the reoeptaole 7 for the pur¬
pose of removing aooumulated ash. The pipe 8 leads to the
admission valve 10 of an internal oombustion engine 11. The
exhaust from the engine is controlled by an exhaust valve 12
operated as heretofore from a oam shaft turning at one-half
the speed of the engine shaft. The exhaust pipe 13 leads
to a drum 14, preferably of sheet metal, whioh acts not only
as a muffler, but also as a heater for heating the room in
whioh the apparatus is looated. Prom this oombined muffler
and heater a pipe 15 oonduots the produots of oombustion to
a flue or stack 16. The cylinder of the internal oombus¬
tion engine 11 is provided with the rusual water-jacket 17,
supplied with water from a pipe 18. A pipe 19 leads from
the bottom of the water-J aoket to a fiat tank 20 having a
valved admission pipe 21, by which water may be supplied
bo the tank from time to time. Prom the water tank 20 ia
?ipe 22 leads to the bottom of the gas generator. A suit¬
ably paoked door 23 is provided to permit the re-
aoval of ash, as well as to facilitate' the starting of oom¬
bustion. The . Internal oombustion engine 11 operates
an eleotrlo generator 24, whioh ohargeB the storage batteries
[ON BACK OF PRECEDING PAGE]
| odt XX*- XJtdnJj dnoTwo btaisao^ ot -tjXXs oXSamodo*- sdaTaqo noridl;
• .b'emuaaoo need sari xbwl!
-sebtui ie ttod ecf ■ ym tto£ti$$tal o at feat -roino nl I
■ .Sniwa-ib aoJt"£«*qmooo* arid od fcbdooiifo aJi noidnodia .boodaj
.butaiaaqa bbnotoiq eat to wo tv oitammisotb jr grt h worts
XXoris «oTi-$eao a Hdiw bobivoTq si ‘Tods'senss aag ortT ' j
lew! .e ,S Jaiio to 9ha~.3 * ,£ 3r1.tn.tX sfoiicfo-r.tt b anlrarf Xj:
— atclni eh Xowi rfoiriv,' rigirouhi P. -ioob fttofoaq 13 bris ,i» Toqqorfi!
fiohoonrwo a Oijhq .0 si -A -roqqoif arid moit snioraoJ .f>oor;h>!:
as ,8 ocrrq r. sbno.txo rioiriv/ oini V Xseaov to Totfaisrfo ' a rfhiw^
V*cs:C --qao v.'Gios A .TndaTaqpa - rfaa na mot ot bb oa ( rtV/o rTc, .
--0!(V orid-'Tot V »Xo.<3d-qeooT odt to mot tod arid ia babtvoiq ocfj:
ertt ot safojoX 8 ocriq ori? .rfs's botjdXsjmsJooa snivomoi . to aaoqi
arit .XX leriiyres. aoXdOHctaoo lame tat n* 'ho ox svXsv aolaelab^.
; SX ovXjjv- iasjistbc.e a» qd boXIo-tdnoo af soigne erti mit- tauatixoi
IXarf-ono ■)£ a flinrmt state, mao b moit oiototoi&d or. '.LoJ*Toqoj
1 86noX-'«X oqiq -Jausitjce .orff .Jt.erfa snigho orij -to Jbasea orfj"
| xLao,.-ton.&toB tSotdw ■ ,£atoa debris to yXtfs-seto'iq ,AX nr. xriS a odj|
1 at moot odi gnidaori tot imtmd a -as o.aXs drier .ifeXItwin s -as|
| ToX%liBft. borririmoo stat JKon^t •• .bed.gooX ai- eudsTaqqs orf.t rioiriwji
j ot -aottoudmoo to Btouboiq wrid actor/bnoo 3X oqiq V T®‘daeri'*haj
’-SSJdmo Xsaio. tat erfd to . Te'bnJtXv.o'- eW®- .OX rids da nb oli£t -*|
^X detfoat-Tadflsr imfr, «i£j beblvodSL at XX onijbctb- -noidi!
0m/> u> o.kfiDW>- % >- Ahv- ctn^asyJzb.: :i
I -anXrarl OS dsust tg£&& ot to fya.fJtfetfivr oat. to mo* to* orfjjl
>. M&xr'k) Ua.v dl/rnu c^yJo VVMTYTU I
'AoiXj0a atf >6Sflj *i9i*vf itofriw/^tf. ,XS dqkq holEsimbs bovlis-^
slos sfnatj|'.T0isv/ brO -Biot'S . .ersthd 6S • etil't- mit M&t‘ edi bctlj
-tiwa A .totBTsnas asg ovW lo taottod- e&t Ot ehsol SS aqi^j
-BT- -arit! Xim-rscf ■ t>i b&Mvotq at SS'ioob bejforq YXtfi|
—moo to aniiifid-.o .srti o^d'XXiost oi os XXow es .ribs'- to- -XsVoJ
ao-iSToqo ? XX eaiSne noi^fjcrmoo IsrtToihi oriX .noid-arrdj!
aehroi^scT oa*TOb& - oat ■ aoaisrfo xioiriw .AS Tod-aTenog- ohi.-tboXe nj.
2B. A switch 26 Is interposed between the electric gene¬
rator and the storage batteries, for the purpose of discon¬
necting the two when deBired. Preferably the generator 24
is shunt-wound, so as to thereby operate either as a motor
or generator without the necessity of changing any of its
connections. If, however, a series-wound generator is
used, a separate reversing switch is employed for the pur¬
pose of reversing its field in converting the same from a
motor to a generator and vioe versa. The explosive mixture
in the internal oombustion engine 11 is ignited in any suit¬
able way, either by a hot tube or by an eleotrio spark, the
latter being preferable. In the pipe a I provide an air
opening 27 regulated by a valve 28, in order to provide for
the proper adjustment of the explosive mixture. TShen the
valve 28 has been once adjusted, it will not ordinarily re¬
quire any readjustment during the continued operation of the
device. The air for supplying oxygen to the gas generator
enters through an admission pipe 29 in the water tank 20 so
as to be saturated with water vapor before reaching the--
generator. Preferably the engine 11 is provided with an
auxiliary exhaust 30 having a oheok valve 31 therein and
a outoff valve. 32. When the engine 1b being started, the
cutoff valve 32 is opened, so that the engine will operate
as a simple air pump, exhausting at each tffcroice^^Aa ^oVn^ "
as the correct oycle of operation oonmenoeB, the cutoff
valve 32 is oloBed, so that exhaust from the engine takes
plaoe at every other stroke by the operation of the main
exhaust valve 12 in the usual way.
In operating an apparatus as described, and assuming
the storage battery 28 to be partially charged, I first
start a fire on the grate or grid 3 of the gas generator
and charge the same fully with fuel, preferably oharooal. !
-4- ‘
The doors 5 and 23 are now olosed. The switdh 26 la now
oloaed, so that the eleotric generator 24 operates aa a
motor, and this oauses the engine 11 to operate as a pump,
drawing air through the gas generator from the admission
pipe 29, water tank 20 and pipe 22. TSfhen the auxiliary
exhaust valve 31 is employed, the engine when thus operating
as a pump will exhaust at every stroke. If, however, the
main exhaust 12 is alone relied upon, the engine will ex¬
haust at every seoond stroke. The air thus supplied to
the gas generator is insufficient to support complete com¬
bustion therein, and consequently carbon monoxide gas (00)
will be generated. Thi3 carbon monoxide gas passes through
the pipe 6 into the ash separator 7, in which any fine me¬
chanically entrained solid partioles are removed, tfrom the
ash separator the gas passes through the pipe 8 into the en¬
gine cylinder. Atmospheric air is added to the gas at the
air opening 27 so as to result in the production of an ex- :
plosive mixture. As soon as the engine reoeives such an
explosive mixture, it begins to operate independently' of the
eleotric motor, assumes the load, and oauses the motor to
operate then bb a generator supplying ourrent to the storage
batteries. The exhaust from the internal oombustion engine
passes through the heater 14, where it is muffled and heat
abstracted therefrom, and thenoe to the stack 16. The water
in the Jaoket 17 will be heated by the suooessive explosions
and will olroulate through the water tank 20. The air en¬
tering the gas producer passes over the surface of this hot
water and abstracts the vapor therefrom. By oauslng the
incoming air to bp saturated with water vapor, the quantity
of gas generated will be considerably increased so as to
consequently Improve the efficiency of the apparatus. As
soon as the fuel has been consumed In the generator or the
[ON BACK OF PRECEDING PAGE]
i j
| won oi 8S dodiwa ©dT .bsaoXo vjo« o*ia CS ba» 3 uiooS odl' j
j a as aoijsrsoao *>8 loixnsMioa oitdoaXo odd dsr it oe ,bsuolo j
j «q?atfq s' as eist© qo od XX -aniswo edd ssiuwa nidi baa .lodoxa !
noiaaiiriw arid awtl •xois're'noa a«s odd ri&noirtd tlh aniws-rJb j
V*siXi*ws add noxiT .SS oqiq fins OS jfasd .'i&Jsw tes »$iq i|
gniis-jo go sndd nwit> on f jiao sdd ,boyoXams a i X? stXsv dansirko j|
orti , nevDV/oif ,1X .©tfo-ide yjove is dsosxis© Iliv; qtauq s es |
“*6 XXiw sniyns- add ,noqu bsiX.«>.-i anoXa ai SI daifaxbe© xiisat |i
! oi b*Mwm SbviJ- -i y.fi odT .edoado irnoooa v-vsvs is .dousd S
) -cwo oioXq.iiofi ivoqqirfi ' oi dnoioillx/ani ai toisionos eos odd |
i (00) esg ©ateonom nod-iso yldneup oanoo iris ,«ie"xadi noidancf j!
iriawo-iri.t ae*Ba<v Bag ©Jdixonom riocf-iao aidl .bodsnsnss acf Xliw !|
I -era anil 'yns'rfoidiv ni ,V •xodxrisqsa x£a* add oini it aqiq add !i
! erW r«^ .bo-M^iVaia saXoidisq biloa bsnisadns yXXaoinsdo !|
:-ns -Oiti oinf>fiv ©qiq ©di rfguondd asaaaq asg sd» loia-tagoa xlas j|
j °o fcobba ni *x.ta oinsdqaoiitdA .-tobuilyo ©nig j:
ns lo rioidonba-iq odd ni dlwecn od as oa VS gainaqo tin !
rts dona aayioo^j orjigno odd as noon aA^ .evrixfta oviaolq ||
odd lo vXinabnoqabra s&n'ogt of^attial2M^^^^&‘%|iaoXqjc& |
od T-o^om’ ©rich noat/ub ft its ^tooJt orfi a oumsixa- C70cfiw8 oitchoalo j; '
©ad-iodcr add oi dne-mro -aniylqqjjB ■xoixnsireg s es nsrid ods'isqo jj "
enlgno noidantfinoo Ismedni edd csoul -denarise© axst! .asineddscf j
dasd bris bolllwnt ai di anedv; ,M toiaorl edd rfawotrli soansq
j'loisw ax{T .8X dosia sdi oi ©ocorti bna .moaloiorii. boiosiiecfxj
anoiaolqy.© eviaaeoenn- exfi \tf Jbsisod a cl IX iw VX ia^&jat,' axti- ni
-no nin <ndT .OS >lrifli noisw edi rfanooxfi oislnonio IXivv Ans
iori aitfi lo eoslnx/a arid navo aaassg isonboaq asg orfi gni-xoi
©rid gniawso \;a .iao-rlo-rodi noqsv sdi aiostiacfa bits -xeisv;
yiiinsi.jp sxli ,-coqsv -jedsw ditv; bsinwisa /jcf oi lis gnimooni
oi as oa beanoitoni yXctonobianoo W XXiw bsimenag osg lo
eA. . axjisisqqn arid lo yonaioill© odd evonqmi yXinonpeanoo
odd -xo noioionog arid ni fierauariOo noscf osri Xoul odd os nooa
-0-
batteries have beoome fully charged, the switch 36 is opera¬
ted to open the olrouit, although obviously this may be done
automatically by the employment of a polraized relay which
operates when the ourrent from the storage batteries is re¬
versed, and the electrical generator onoe more tends to
operate as a motor, when tho internal oombustion engine no
longer reoeives an explosive mixture. I consider it pref¬
erable to make use of oharooal for the generation of oarbon
monoxide gas, for the reason that with this material the gas
is free of impurities and does not require washing, as would
be the case in gas produced from coal. Purthormore, by em¬
ploying charcoal I obtain very little ash and no clinker, in
which respects oharooal is further superior to ooal.
Having now deBoribed my invention, what X claim as
new therein and desire to secure by letters Patent is as
follows:
, l. The combination with a gas generator for pro-
ducing a combustible gas directly from a solid fuel, of an
internal combustion engine connected to said generator, and
an ash separator between tho engine and generator, substan¬
tially as and for the purposes set forth.
2. The combination with a gas generator for pro¬
ducing oarbon monoxide gas from oharooal, of an internal
oombustion engine oonneoted to Bald generator, substantial¬
ly as and for the purposes set forth.
, .3. The combination with a gas generator f or pro-
CU\A ciaaJ Urwvucti,^* cCtwuK MUvW
ducing a combustible gas directly from a solid fuel^ of an
internal oombustion engine oonneoted to said generator, and
an electric motor connected to said engine for starting the
same, substantially as and for the purposes set forth.
4. The combination with a gas generator for pro-
-6-
.Lmvvfl. tnuucUvn
duoing a oohbustlble gas directly from a solid fuel, of an
internal combustion engine oonneoted to said generator, an
eleotric motor oonneoted to said engine for starting the
same, and storage batteries for furnishing current to the
eleotrio motor, substantially as and for the purposes set
forth.
6. The combination with a gas generator for pro¬
ducing a combustible gas djireotly from solid fuelj^mjase^forJ
supplying to Baid generatoj^tmoaphsEio^ air.
V
Int in
quantity to support oomplete combustion, and means for satu¬
rating the air with water vapor, of an internal combustion
engine oonneoted to said generator, substantially as and for|
the purposes sat forth.
6.
The combination with a gas generator for pro-^_
duoing a oombustible gas direotly from solid fuelf
supplying to said genelrato^'i^ M
A A
quantity to support oomplete oombustion, and means for satu¬
rating the air with water vapor, of an internal combustion
engine connected to said generator, and an ash separator be¬
tween the engine and generator, substantially as and for the
purposes set forth,
7. The combination with a gas generator for pro¬
ducing a combustible gas dirsotly from solid fuel, and a
water tank oonneoted with the atmosphere and with said gene¬
rator respectively, of a water- Jacketed internal combustion
engine oonneoted with the generator, and connections between
the water jacket of said engine and said water tank, sub¬
stantially as and for the purposes set forth.
S. The combination with a gas generator for pro¬
ducing a combustible gas direotly from solid fuel, and a
water tank oonneoted with the atmosphere and with said gene¬
rator respectively, of a water- j aoketed internal oombustion
-7-
engine connected with the generator, connections between thJ
water jacket of said engine and aaid water tank, and means
for maintaining a substantially constant water level in saii
tank, substantially as and for the purposes set forth.
. t: , 9* The combination with a gas generator for pro¬
duo lngaT o,owbuB^ible"'gaa diroo^'ly from aoli^^ue^of an in-
A
ternal oombustlon engine oonneoted to said generator, and a
heater oonneoted to the exhaust of said engine, substantial¬
ly as and for the purposes set forth.
10. The combination with a gas generator for pro¬
ducing a combustible gas direotly from solid fuel, of an in¬
ternal combustion engine oonneoted to said generator, and
moans for mixing atmospheric^ air with the gaa between the
generator and^engine, substantially as and for the purposes
set forth.
11. The combination with a gas generator for pro¬
ducing a combustible gas direotly from solid fuel, of an in¬
ternal combustion engine oonneoted to said generator, means
forjaixing atmospheric air with the gas between the genera¬
tor and engine, and a valvo for regulating the added air,
substantially as and for the purposes set forth.
12. In apparatus for charging storage batteries,
the combination with a storage battery, of a combined eleo-
trio motor and generator connected therewith, an internal
combustion engine for operating said aleotrio generator, and
a gas generator for producing a oombustible gas direotly
from solid fuel and for supplying the Borne to the engine,
substantially aa and for the purposes set forth.
13. In apparatus for charging storage batteries,
the combination with a storage battery, of a combined shunt-
wound electric motor and generator oonneoted therewith, an
internal oombustion engine for operating said eleotrio gene-
-8-
rator, and a gas generator for producing a combustible gas
directly from Bolid fuel and for supplying the same to the
engine, substantially as and for the purposes set forth.
14. In apparatus for oharging storage batteries,
the combination with a Btorage battery, of a oombined eleo-
trio motor and generator connected therewith, a switoh for
connecting and disconnecting the electrio motor and genera¬
tor to and from the storage battery, an internal oombustion
engine for operating said electric generator, and a gaB
generator for producing a combustible gas direotly from
solid fuel and for supplying the same to the engine, Bub-
I stantially as and for the purposes set forth.
State Of New jersey, l .
Counts Of Essex, J
THOMAS A. EDISON . the above-named
PETITIONER, BEING DULY SWORN, DEPOSES AND SAYS THAT HE IS A Citizen
OF THE Ohited States and a resident of Xlewellyw Park, Orange,
County of Essex and State of New Jersey}
THAT HE VERILY BELIEVES HIMSELF TO BE THE ORIGINAL, FIRST AND SOLE INVENTOR
of the IMPROVEMENT IN STORAGE BATTERY OHAHOINO APPARATUS
DESCRIBED AND CLAIMED IN THE ANNEXED SPECIFICATION; THAT HE DOES NOT
KNOW AND DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THE SAME WAS EVER KNOWN OR USED BY OTHERS
N THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF;
OR PATENTED OR DESCRIBED IN ANY PRINTED PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES
| OF AMERICA OR ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY BEFORE HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF,
OR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THIS APPLICATION; OR IN PUBLIC USE OR ON
; SALE IN THE UNITED STATES FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THIS APPLICATION,
I AND THAT NO APPLICATION FOR PATENT UPON SAID INVENTION HAS BEEN FILED BY
| & HIM OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OR AS8IGN8 IN ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY MORE
2—161.
SERIES OF 1900.
•9 I
a I ha, vo to acknowledge the receipt of the petition, specification, oath, and |
■g drawing of your alleged Improvement in _ J
)7Jr1 a a/ L
S with Fifteen Dollars as the first fee payable thereon.
The papers are duly filed, and your application for a patent will he taken E
“ up for examination in its order.
« Nc8X&r~ M.
Thomas A.. Edison,
c/o Dyer ft Dyer,
#31 Nansoi at.,
H. Y. City.
Please find below a communication from
Department of the Interior,
United States Patent Office,
Washington, d, c„
c EXAMINER in charge of your application,
Storage pd; eery Charging Apparatus, filed March 13, 1903, serial
This case has been examined.
Claima 1 and 2 are rejected on; -
t«39#46«, Txirola, Hoy. 20, 1894 ' -y'
Bxplo. JSng. ii cycle). 0.
Claims 3, 4, 9, 18, 13, 14 are rejected a3 being ug^egatlons.
Claims 3, 4, 12, 13, AAi are rejected on Loroie, In ylew of
la Poche, #667,662, gepr 11, 1900, (^xplo. Eng. Speed T>ag.):
01 aims 6, 6, 9, 10, and 11 are also rejectedron lords; oee
also tlermrn patent to I'AVeniryjfndua trial, #108,165, JUly 29, 1898,
Brltlfh patent to Otto, #17,210, Affig. 24, 1899, (Sxplo, Bn« . . 8 1 sir ting
Do vie ee) ; Pemlngton, #670,44l^0ct , 27, 1896, (Kxplo . Bng. 4 Cycle).
M.K.O.
L’sco No, Paper No,
UNITED STATES PATENT OPPICE.
Thomas A. Edison
Improvement in Storage Battery
Charging Apparatus
Piled March. 13, 1903.
Serial No. 147,567
I HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS
Sir: —
Replying to Office action of April 11,
1903, please amend the above entitled case as follows:
-Claim 1, line 2 after "fuel" insert - "and
having an unobstructed connection with the atmosphere."
, Claim 3, line 2 after "fuel" insert - "and hav¬
ing an unobstructed connection with the atmosphere."
Claim 4, line. 2 after "fuel" insert - "and hav¬
ing an unobstructed connection with the atmosphere."
Claim 5, line 2 cancel "means" and insert in
place thereof - "a connection". - Claim 5, line 3, can¬
cel "atmospherio air", and insert in place thereof "by
suction air under atmospheric pressure and".
/ Claim 6, line 2 canoel "means" and insert in
place thereof "a connection". Claim 6, line 3 cancel
"atmospheric air" and insert in place thereof "by suction
air under atmospherio pressure and".
J Claim 9, line 2 after "fuel" insert -"and hav¬
ing an unobstructed connection with the atmosphere."
j ARGUMENT.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 have been amended to
dearly distinguish from the references. The difficulties
which are met with in the attempt to produoe gas from solid
fuel suitable for the operation of an internal combustion
engine, are well known. The use of coal for the production
of the gas neoessitites such elaborate devices for purify¬
ing the gaB as to make the apparatus utterly impracticable
for the purposes for which applicant's device is adapted,
lorois sayB that he finds that by using air and steam under
considerable pressure, and producing the gas under pressure
and at a high temperature from coal, the gas iB of suoh
purity that no washing or scrubbing of the same is necessary
Mr. Edison, however, solves the problem in an en¬
tirely different manner, and by the UBe of much simpler
apparatus. He does not attempt to use coal, but instead
US6B charcoal, and produces carbon monoxide gas which, when
mixed with air, he finds to be very well adapted, for the
operation of an internal oombustion engine. He dispenses
with the air compressor, compressed air reservoir, and pre¬
heating devioes of loroiB' , and draws the air from the at¬
mosphere into the gas producer by suction of the engine.
It will be evident that applicant's apparatus is
very much less expensive than that of loroiB, and does
not require the services of an eapert attendant to operate
same.
It may be stated that Mr. Edison's invention is
being operated very suooessfully at his laboratory in West
Orange. The apja ratuB operates with great efficiency, and
requires very little attention.
Claim 2 is distinguished from the references in that
"a gas generator for producing carbon, monoxide jias from
oharooal" is set forth. ThiB feature; appears to be entirely
novel, and it 1b thought the claim should ha allowed.
Claims 10 and 11 distinguish from the referenoa
in that they speoify "means for nesting atmospheric air
with the gas between the generator and engine". It is
thought that in the reference theftmixing would not he so
complete or thorough as in the structure claimed. Eurther-
more in the reference the air is not under atmospheric
pressure. It is oompresed air, and requires an air oom-
preBBor and reservoir.
Reconsideration of olaims 12, 1$ and 14 is request¬
ed for the reason that these olaims cover combinations whicjh
are not found in the references. It is thought that the
disclosure of some of the elements of the combination in
one reference and other elements in another reference shouli
not be held to anticipate these claims in view of the co¬
operation of the various elements of the combination to
produoe the unitary result which it is the objeot of the
apparatus to accomplish, and which iB accompli shed by Mr.
Edison, by the use of Buch sample apparatus.
An allowance of the case is respectfully solioited.
Thomas A. Edison
His Attorney.
Orange, N.J.
April 6th, 1904.
UNITED STATES PATENT 0PP1CE.
Thomas A. Edison,
Piled March 13, 1903
Serial No. 147,587
Room No. 218
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OE PATENTS'.
Sir:--
Please amend the above entitled case as
follows : ,
' Pase 4, after the sentence ending in line
24 insert - "This is advantageous , in that it increases the
quantity of air drawn into the gas generator and therefore
starts the same into operation more quickly.11.
\^,V Insert the following claims:
| ;Y, r 15. The combination with a gas generator for
5 producing a oombustible gas directly from solid fuel, of
an internal combustion engine connected therewith and hav¬
ing a piston cylinder , an inlet port for the explosive
[mixture, a main exhaust , means for opening the main, exhatist
, , h-otfA-
at every second stroke of the piston and an auxiliary, a
mally closed exhaust, capable of being opened to (allow
the cylinder to exhaust at every stroke of the pist^bn, subs
stantially as set forth,
16. The method of generating mechanical power
which consists in pr oducing^c arb on monoxide by burning
63iarooal in the presence of a limited air supply, mixing
air with said carbon monoxide to produce an explosive mix¬
ture, knd. operating an internal combustion engine by means
of said explosive mixture, substantially as set forth.
17. \The method of generating mechanical power
which oonsists in drawing air under atmospheric pressure
through incandescent charcoal by means of suction created
by the piston of an internal ccmbustion engine, thereby
producing carbon monoxide , mixing air with said carbon mon-..
oxide to produce an explosive mixture, and operating said
engine by means of said explosive n^ixture, substantially
as set forth. \
\
REM A R K S. . . .
Claim 15 covers a combination which is be¬
lieved to bo entirely novel and therefore patentable, in
view of its usefulness as set forth in the application.
Claims 16 and 17 are believed to be proper¬
ly inserted in this application in view of the recent de¬
cision of the United States Supreme Court in Steinmetz
vs. Allen, 109 O.Cf. 549, ou^d iL
CL- 'V’/V-U"" cjl (l . fjl ,
U Respectfully submitted,
Thomas A. Edison,
By
Orange, H. J. His Attorney.
April 7, 1904.
V:
4 *'Tho,C.mmi»<ton.r of Palon
tf/~“
; United States Patent Office,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
-/Thomas A. Edison,
c/o Prank L. Dyer,
Edison laboratory,
Orange, E. J.
Please find betow a com
WASHINGTON, O. C.
| ,
Juno 9, 1904.
,^L.
(J. S, PATENT OFFICE,
JUN 9 J904
n from, the EXAMINER in charge of your application,
StoaragO Battery Charging Apparatus, filed narch 13, 1903, serial
#1*17,537. . ,
■ b\ tA ,
This case, as amended April 7, 1904, has been considered.
Claims 16 and 17 presented in the amendment of April 3, 190£,
• h8*e ' b00n entQrod are foimd to contain subject matter cov-
•, ering a separate invention from .that originally filed in this case.
- Action on the merits of all the claims is deferred pending the ctui-
# collation of these claims, in accordance with the decision of ,the
• Commissioner of Patents in ex parte Selle, llo O.O., 1720.
Attention is further called to British patent to Siemens, #2,50
'f June 9» 1081» (Bxplo. Eng., Multiple Cylinder) 5 British patent to
; Parker ot.al., #23,476, Jfor. 20, 1901.
Attention is also called to the July 1902 number of the Gas
Engine, published by the Gas Engine Publishing 0o., Cincinnati, 0.
• - Attention is further called . to; -
-/ #261, 698, Fogarty, July 25, 1882;
, IGas processes, Water cont.): ■ .
j #254, 204-, Fogarty, Peb. 20, 1882; .:
#265,792, Fogarty, oct. 10, 1882; ■
iTf. leest Ste“ «— «•
(Gas generators, Wood oil): :
#244,173, Belt et.al., July 12, 1381;
(Gas Generators, Retort, Wood, Oil); ; •
Si™ H5iLisr2a“ait?s,5“i i f 4 w?- *
U.H.C.
UNITED STATES PATENT OPPICE.
Thomas A. Edison,
Improvement in Storage
Battery Charging Apparatus r
Piled March 13, 1903, :
Serial Ho. 147,587.
ROOM NO. 218.
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS:
S I Ei-
Replying to office action of June 9th,
1904, a reconsideration of the requirement for the cancella¬
tion of claims 16 and 17, and an action upon the merits
of the claims are requested.
The examiner states that claims 16 and 17 are
found to contain subject matter covering a separate in¬
vention from that originally filed in this case. The in¬
vention covered by these claims is a separate invention
from that originally filed only in the sense that every
method or process is a separate invention from the apparatus
used in carrying it out. Under the recent decision of
the Supreme Court in the Steinmetz case cited in our amend¬
ment of April 8, 1904, it was held in very positive language
that an inventor has a right to Insert both method and
apparatus claims in a single implication. I quote from
the opinion as follows:
"A ruling having such effect must be considered
as final and apealnble. TOiether, however, to the
Examiners-in-chief or to the Commissioner, and from
to tlle 90,Ir,fc! we may postpone answering
until we have considered We right of an lnventor^o
join prooess and apparatus claims in one apnllogSTon.
»3ut as we have already said, to establish a
rule applicable to all cases is not to exercise dis¬
cretion. Such a rule ignores the differences which
invole discretion, and which can alone justify its
exercise and we are of opinion therefore that Rule 41
is an invalid regulation.
' "Having settled the right of appellant, we may
• now return to a consideration of his remedy!!
"The unity of the inventions claimed by peti-
tioner in the case at bar we may assume. It is not
denlecf by respondent. Petitioner" 'had, therefore, THe
right to join them in one application. 11
The claims in question are thought to be such
process claims as come within the above ruling and for this
reason to be properly joined in this application.
In case the examiner adheres to his former require--
ment, it is requested that an action on the merits be given
as to all of the apparatus claims. It is believed that
the decision in ex parte Sells cited by the examiner does
not require that all action upon the merits of a case be
suspended, pending the determination of the question of
division; and since applicant is entitled to make apparatus
claims in this case, whichever way the question of divls-
sion is settled, it is believed that action on the apparatus
claims should not be suspended.
Respectfully submitted
THOMAS A. EDISON,
By
His Attorney.
Orange, N.J.
June Q*? 1904.
2—260.
department of the Interior,
United States] Patent Office,
. Washington, D. c., Sept. 21, 1904.
Xhomas A. Edison, I it— i
. i 111 iWIiJm
O/o Prank 1. Dyer, gi ’
Edson laboratory, Orange, Hew Jersey. j !
Apparatus. j
!
1 _ Commissioner of Patents.
1
i’he requirement for division made in the last official let¬
ter ie hereby repeated. Ho action on the merits of the apparatus
claimed can be Given until thks requirement is complied with.
Applicant’s attention is called to ex parte Snyder 110 0.0. 2236.
It is noted that none .of the mechanism of the apparatus
claimed carry out the particular methods sought to be claimed.
Applicant’s attention is further called to Bates 573,937, Deo.
29, 1896, Wftnand, 618,549, Jan. 31, 1899, Vrestinghouee, 680,827
Aug. 20, 1901, (Oas Producers;.)
•j
Examiner, DiSr.
UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE.
Thomas A. Edison, )
)
IMPROVEMENT IN STORAGE BATTERY )
CHARGING APPARATUS, ) ROOM NO. 218.
Filed March 13, 1903, )
)
Serial Ho. 147,587. )
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS,
SIR:-
Replying to office action of September
21, 1904, please amend the above entitled case by cancel¬
ing claims 16 and 17, in accordance with the Examiner’s
requirement. An action of the merits 6s respectfully so¬
licited in view of the amendment and argument filed April
7th, 1904.
THOMAS A. EB1S0N,
By
His Attorney.
Orange, New Jersey.
October 1904.
....jaOtoom _ 383 .
department or the Interior,
United States Patent Office,
Thomas A. Bdisotl, Washington, D. C., Dec. 19, 19 0^*
c/o Frarflc L. Dyer,
Hdaon Laboratory,
Orange, New Jersey.
1 1: ; I OFFICE,
DEC IS 1904
liyXJLlXjIBP.
Please. flnd below\a communication from the EXAMINER in charge of your application,
Storage nattery Charging Apparatus, riled March 13, 1903, Serial
#147,587.
?r of Patent
This case, as amended Oct. 13, 1904, has been considered.
Claims 3, 4, 9, 13, 13, and 14 are rejected as aggregations.
Claim 1 is rejected onj-
€ ,cl01'
Claim 2 is rejected on Parker. In regard to this claim it may be
stated that in view of the common use of charcoal for gas producing
purposes, that it would not involve invention to use this substance
connection
In a -gas producer in *gK*£±ax with an explosion engine, such as
for- example,- V/inand . Attention is called to the art cited in the
letter of June 9, 1904, as showing the common practice to use char¬
coal. in, the manner stated. \Vy
Claims 3 and 4 are rejeoted on Y/inand, in view of La Roche .
There is no proper combination between the specific form of gas ^
producing means and the explosion engine on the one hand, or an
explosion engine and electric-'v generator on the other. '•
- .Claims 6 and 6 are rejected on Yfinand, and parker.
-Claims 7, and 6 are rejeoted on Winund.
• . ..In the-.next to the last line of claim 8, the means for maintain¬
ing a constant water level is not illustrated.
•Claim 9 is rejected on Lorois or;-
#680,827, Westinghouse, Aug. 20, 1901.
#147,587-
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected on Lorois. Air coming through
the pipe 16 meets the gas .'.‘Homing through the pipe Q' In the head
Of the cylinder In thiB patent, and between the combustion chamber and
the -^generator. Attention is also called to; -
f4o3,294, Sohmidt et.al., May 14, 1889;
Explo. Eng., Oen. Combustion). •-?
Claims 12, 13, 14 ai*e rejected on Lorois, in view of La Hoche.
Claim 15 is rojeoted on British patent to Boult, #15,018, of
1901, (sxplo. Eng., Igniters, Sparkers).
. So far as understood, the last 4 lines of this claim are inac¬
curate. Apparently in line 6, the v/ord "stroke" should be "revolu¬
tion", and the word "piston", should bo "shaft"; similar changes
should be made in line 8.
H.RYc.
If V
2—300.
United States Patent Office,
Washington, D. C., ’ ‘
Thomas A. Edison, Dec. 28, 19o4-
c/o Prank L. Dyer,
Bdson Laboratory,
orange, Hew jersey.
Please find, below a communication from the EXAMINER in charge of your application,
u. 8, PATEriT OFFICE,
•'DEC 28 1004
M.A.ILBD-
Storage Battery Charging Apparatus,
#147,587.
filed Huron 15, 1903, Serial
$J, QJtL~
Attention is oalled to the following patents which further show
the use of charcoal in the relation applicant has disclosed.
Taylor, #640,048, Dec. 26, 1899;
Taylor, #638,485, Dec. 5, 1899;
(3as producers) .
H.K.C.
}}y^u^S ^L^tS
f—
Folio No. id
Serial No. »?. ■ I,
Address.
Filed .«//£* v 4,J.9?y. . . Examiner's Room No. ,.c2sA3
Assignee . . . .
Ass’g’t Exec . Recorded ; Liber Page
Patent No. 7 7 i>' .% if. A Issued •( - / f u «-/
ACTIONS.
16...
2.....^mW^y 17 ...
4 . Z . <#. 19...
>: 5 20...
8 /.9.. ?.Sf2 3 .
9 .
. 25...
1 ll _ , . . ."^lrl4^T^*r^777r77^ri^T — .£>t4f^LTrrfr!7777 . 26...
J2 . . ^s^rr:. . . . .^4rO. '-r 27...
<13 J 28...
^4..':V, . '. . '. . . . . 29...
15 . '•■•••••. . * . ’•• . 30. v.
f- ' FRANK L. DYER;
‘ ,. ^ Counsel,
, “ l ORANGE, NEW JERSEY.
Applicant.
• • & ■ && i v • •
.X
jVr< ,
^ i .\0-Wvv.- WA<-
^r^fcf^rf V-^jp J\\-/ ^Ji.A^..c
/\'-*-'v" ^a^Xaa-YV'"
. ' CiCc-' ^^>-€Vv^ fcdY" J\A-^ ^^-.(IIA^-
Q^r^ C*\/w 5^-CJVvS^-X. CX^v-'/(>_> .Ayf __ _J
•; . .. .■T‘t ,.:z;
. ^^-ONA- C^ '"\a> .. CVvs^. . . "X^L- . • •"••••^
— . - ■XAf$\fJZjk~s --Ra _ ....!
,cto" ,hyvr^T<>... . . /Lvv^: . tWC^' ; lw _ .^V: .. .
& THE
FREID GRAVITY
DRY PROCESS
— SEPARATORS —
MANUFACTURED BY
THE freed engineering company,
ORANGE, N. J.
For Separating * and * Concentrating
SOLID MATERIALS
COPLESTON & SAXELBY
SELLING AGENTS
39 CORTLANDT STREET
NEW YORK CITY
is for tho purpose of preventing any spill at the roller feed.
The deflecting action is caused by the balanced non-cavitating
screw propeller “U,” which creates a partial vacuum in tho ac¬
tion chamber "V,” and the valve "W" controls the pressure at
The
openings “H" at the ball!
settle in tho chamber “K.”
The driving mechanism is arranged to allow minute change of
speed of the propeller, and is driven by direct coupled motor, by
means of flexible flange couplings at “Z," or belt from motor or
line shaft to loose and tight pulley as shown.
By adjusting the counter driver “AA,” the speed of the pro¬
se particles, giving a nroduct of
;nt “X,” at tho top of the settling
atmospheric volume to exceed tho
rs. This causes the light particles to
ground to pass 1-2 inch
separating the fine from th _ _ _ , _
nine separate grades, from 200 mesh to 1-2' iriclTmosti.' This is
accomplished by one pass through the Separator.
Tho Separator can be regulated to treat any property as light
as cork or as heavy as iron, by adjusting the counter drive,
which gives the propeller a speed ratio of 13 to 1.
For concentration, the Separator is adjusted at the baffle
plates so as to increase or decrease the atmospheric action on
the material treated and in this way will concentrate properties
from 0.5 to 22.00 specific gravity, recovering, or saving, 95 per
cent, of the values contained.
Any Information desired ri
separation or concentration, w
COPLESTON & SAXELBY
SELLING AGENTS
For The United States of America
39 CORTLANDT ST., NEW YORK CITY
WHY? #
USE JIGS,
RIFFLES
•*.' AND SCREENS
To Separate or Concentrate Solid Materials, if You
Can Do
MORE. . .
** WORK . . +
CHEAPER
With the Freid Dry Process Separator
^VjL CL/0"V-vv'0-Vu
^ .
3
i:
>■
Oj~- Cl. rtjJLaJiSfc
Cvw. 5A^Q_Xxf'^-vv-v_^
CL. I V'Ca^-T, 'Cvv'C’^-C
Avv/WiyUvv\y(/uvt--
i'Y (VVH'V^'V- vvvv. e>T^-^a CaAJU^A. ,
(X- ACAJUa^ /|AajI>^-A^vvX. c^j/V^A^Uy-c
Avn-^ C^A/^v.'Ia^x^Cviw Q. OU(KU2. /\/WjL
. UtCm.'-Ll Ow’-uC ^\_ £1. /(aa^(m. |
- A- (X- flxe,iryv£v C7vvm^A /jj'vwuz^o (S. CyUlXK '
^A' ^,‘4vuX £j . C uuaj fjyt\Apl/l\.C\,
(i— £W'>w' CVl C\, pi/LOsi. C/^M. %A.
^eL-puCf. /3(UXtiA
, ^ WV\_ t-VV l/Kfi. Ua^(a-£. OL. /^V^a^UMO.'-
. . Ct [jy-U^iL O^sjM'Vu-N-j /^vv /^4vL
£| J ^ Ut-\)
)~LSL.&J~l, A |/|/\^_ I^AV-Ov /$ (SxVX-^iA. . (7C*0
C\.(3viAa^o /6v^A<- j
/& [hLtpJic (biY Aj^jLd^yi Mapzc
//O'wXv; /b-\ CvtXut^,( (Wv 6v_ PW-uX-^s.
J /, V«A-Cii<xX __ ^ , ,,
X^VV'/VV7C’V%^ ... fQtA^Xx^lu ^OU(/T2-^. .
,fc. ' ctuX(^_ . 3^/ •£?FvJL ;
— — C/c-uv^) (Vc cx-^yt" ajcLlc . j
K~c 0^—t^.J^s •
. <2~
Filed a2? /$£?&. .
Examiner’s Room No ....
2 /..iQ./...9.<?y\l...
, 3 . (Jh.^.iscfas<L . . Z^,..^../^^l 8...
8. . . .\ . L . ut.: 23.. .'S/4'. . M-.a*V\<vy\tM. . . -?uo ' I
$9 . »•• . I . . .... 24..rwvfd^5»C . ... %
10. . . . I . yL\^ . u . 2 >v:
ijf/. . ’kXt. ' ^ , ,‘\ ' . . " j
12 ..... - •• . ....'. . ...\j:X.-:.i, . 21 £**&£-. |
13.....;. . :..!....:, . . fater* — '. A -vL* v
14 . •’ . ; . 29 ..ud. v . ,v'- ■■ ..]
FRANK L. DYER,
Petition.
Go tbe Commissioner of iPatents :
lour petitioner! THOMAS A. EDISON, a citizen of the United
States, residing and having his post office address at Llewellyn
Park, Orange, Essex County, New Jersey,
Praps tbat letters patent map be granteb to bim for tbe IMPROVEMENTS IN PROCESS
OP DRY SEPARATION. (Case No. 1103).
set fortb in tbe antieieb speciflcation ; anb be berebp appoints jfranft X. JDper (IRegts*
tration INo. 560), of Ebison Xaboratorp, ©range, Hfew Sersep, bis attornep, witb full
power of substitution anb revocation, to prosecute tbis application, to malie altera=
tions anb ainenbments therein, to receive tbe patent, anb to transact all business in
tbe patent office connecteb tberewftb.
...Thomas.... A.... ..Edison,
SPECIFICATION,
TO V/HOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Be it known that I, Thomas A. Edison of Llewellyn
Park, Orange, Essex County, New Jersey, have invented
certain improvements in Process of Pry Separation, of whioh
the following is a specification:
My invention relutes to the separation of gold from
gravel or other gangue containing the same, hy the "dry
prooess" , wherein a stream of falling granular material is
subjected to the effect of a blast of air by which/the tra¬
jectory of" the falling particles is changed and the lighter
particleB (gangue) oarried over a dividing board so as to be
separated from the heavier particles (gold, black-sand, eto).
The objeot of the invention is to provide a simple and
cheap process and apparatus by which a very perfect separa¬
tion can be secured, whereby placer deposits may be prof ital •
ly forked whioh are now regarded as unworkable on account oi
the low percentages of gold contained in the same, and
lack of water.
In order to secure the best results in practical
operation, it is necessary, or at least highly important
that the following conditions should be observed:
(1) The material supplied to the separating appar¬
atus should be as uniform in sise as practicable, the best
results being secured when the largest parti ole a are not
more than twice as large as the smallest particles. The
possible variation in the size of material depends to a cer¬
tain extent on the oharaoter of the gold being treated.
When the gold is in nugget form, there may be a wider dif¬
ference in the size of the material , than when the. gold is
in the form of scales or wires, A variation of 2 to 1 may
be considered an average, and may be increased or diminished
as required by the special forms in which the metal ooours,
(2) The blast of uir should be continuous and uni¬
form and of equal velocity in all portions , because other¬
wise the falling particles would not be uniformly acted on.
Heretofore, one of the principal difficulties encountered
in the actual operation of dry separators has been the fact
that the blast is retarded at the sides by friction with
the walls, producing irregularities in separation.
(3) The material should be presented to the aotion
of the blast in the form of a very thin stream, only a few
particles thiok, and of the full width of the blast, in
order that each particle may be acted upon by the blast and
not be shielded by other particles.
(4) The material should be brought to rest immed¬
iately before entering the blast in order that all the part¬
icles will have the same uniform and very low velocity when
they enter the blast. In this way, the blast has a much
better opportunity of acting on the falling partioleB, than
if the velocity of the particles was higher.
(5) Finally, the entire apparatus should be so orgar-
ized and the process carried out as to be as automatic as
possible, requiring only a minimum handling of the material,
in order that large quantities of material may be treated at
low cost.
Inaan application for letters Patent, filed May 4,
1903, Serial No, 156553, I desoribe it certain improvements in
dry separators wherein a very perfect separation of properly
sized material may be secured, said apparatus comprising a
separating ohamber having a dividing board in its bottom
and supplied with a blast whioh is made perfectly uniform
by being passed suooessively through a ooarse and a fine
.screen, and material being supplied to; the blast in the form
of t. and in • -2-
of a wide and thin stream, Toy a roller feed, which first de¬
posits the material on a checking shelf off of which it is
forced Toy the succeeding accretions, so that the material
will pass through the blast at a uniform and very low veloc-|
ity. In the carrying out of my improved process, I make use
of a series of separators of this type and to which the
material is fed in a novel manner, whereby the operation
may be performed at low cost per unit of concentrate.
In the drawing 1 show a diagrammatic view of the
apparatus, illustrating the employment of three separators
and also a magnetic separator for removing magnetic portions]
of the concentrate, such as blaok-aarkO-
Referrlng to 'this drawing, I illustrate a set of
three screens 1, 2 and 3, over which the material is succese]-
ivj&y passed, mounted in c}. suitable tower 4, and^progressivejly
increasing mesh. Above each screen is a checking shelf 5
for bringing the material to reBt before passing over each
screen, so that the velocity of the particles is reduced and]
the screening effect improved.
A hopper 6, is located above the screens and is pro¬
vided with a roller feed 7, for feeding a wide, thin stream
of material to the topmost screen. Chutes 8, 9 and 10 lead
to the several separators three being shown. These separa¬
tors are of the type discribea in said application, and each
oonsists of a separating ohamber 11, supplied with a blast
from a fan 12, a course screen 13, a fine screen 14, a
hopper 15 having a roller feed 16, a checking shelf 17, 1::,,..
located behind the feed opening, and on whioh the material
accumulates as a pile, a slatted bottom 18, a dividing board
19, a concentrate chute 20, and a tailings chut© 21. The
tailings are lead off through the ohutes 21 to a conveyor 22,
and thence to a suitable dump.
The concentrates are lead off by the ohutes 20, to a
-3-
bonvoyor 23, and thence to t.he hopper 24, he low which is a
'Magnetic separator of any desired type, a simple bar
magriat^baing shown, whin’- ohanges the trajectory ofiS the
falling particles, causing the magnetic portion, such as
black-sand to fall into a raeeptaole 26, anu permitting the
final rich concentrate to fall into the receptacle 27.
I carrying our my improved process, 1 proceed as
f ollowa :~
The material is removed from ite plaoe of de'
posit, preferably by means of a steam shovel and immediately
screened in coarse soreeriB or "grizzlies" so as to eliminat^
all particles of larger size than any of the particles of
gold to be saved. A large amount of material is thus re¬
jected at the outset, so as to correspondingly reduoe the
quality of the material requiring further treatment. The
finner particles passing through the "grizzlies" are now
conveyed to the mill, in dump cars or otherwise, and deposiiji
in the hopper.
If necessary, the material may be first dried in any
suitable form of drier. By means of the screens 1, 2 and ;
this material will, be sorted into a corresponding number of
sizes, and the separate sizes of material are conveyed to tlj(
Beveral separators as explained. It will, of course be
understood that as many screens should be used as will be
found neoessary to subdivide the material into enough sizes
as to secure in each size a permissible variation in the
particles; for instance, no greater variation than that in
which the largest particles in any size are more than twice
aB large as the smallest partioles in the same size.
The speeds of , the fans of the several separators are
first regulated su|j3ts:to give the desired deflection, oarry-|
ing the gangue over the. dividing boards. Obviously the
speed of the fan will vary according to the size of the
-4-
material* being loss in the separator wlach works the relat¬
ively fine products of the screen 1, than that which operate s
on the coarser products of the screen 15, When the capacity
of the blast of each separator is thus adjusted, a coarse
screen 13, for each is selected and placed in position which
wd-il secure the desired equalizati on of pressure. Since
each separator always works on particles ranging within
definite limits of size, no change in the adjustment of itB
fan or character of its coarse screen will be required, after
the prosper speed of the fan and character of the screen
have been once secured. The material falling very; slowly
through the uniform blast of each separator, and in a thin,
wide stream, will lie deflected by the blast and the gangue
carried over the deflecting board 19, passing off through
the chutes 21 to the conveyor 22, and thence to the refuse
pile. The concentrate, including the gold, black-sand
(magnetite), etc., will not be carried over the dividing
boards, but will pasB off through the chutes 20, to the con¬
veyor 23, and thence to the hopper 24. From, this hopper,
the rough concentrate is subjected to the action of the
magnetic separator 25, and any magnetic particles will be
withdrawn, the final concentrate falling into the receptacle
27, from which it is removed for the reoovery of the gold by
amalgamation, smelting or any other suitable process.
Having now described my invention, what 1 claim as
new therein, and desire to seoure by letters Patent, is as
follows:
(1) In a dry separation process, the improvement
which consists in subjecting granular or pulverulent mater¬
ial in the form of a wide, thin stream, to the action of a
^^§ular and_unifom_blaat pf air and in separately recover¬
ing the tailings and concentrate so secured, substantially
as set forth.
[ON BACK OF PRECEDING PAGE]
(2) In a d^y separation process, the improvement
which consists in causing; granular or pulverulent material
to fall from a state of 3
i and in a wide, thin streai
ivering the tailings an
-ed, substantially
blowing a blast of air
iualize_±ha/blant and in subjecting to the effi
blast , granular or pulverulent material
i of a wide, thin stream, substantially as set
which consists in blowing a blast of air through "a screen,
r— CHj — l
i ant^ in subjecting to the effecl
of the ^ual4aed| blast, granular or pulverulent material
in the form of a thin wide stream and immediately aftere
(5) In a dry separation process, the improvement
which consists in blowing a blast of air through a plurality
of screens of progressively decreasing mesh so as to . equal-
to
ize the blast, and in subjecting,, the effect of the equalized
blast, granular or pulverulent material in the form of a
wide, thin stream, substantially as set forth.
(6) In a dry separation process, the improvement
which consists in subjecting granular or pulverulent mater¬
ial in the' form of. :a wide, thin stream to the action of a
regular and unif ormr blast . qf.,.,air, and In subjecting the
covered concentrate to
lagnetic separation to remove
magnetic particles,' substantially as set forth.
(7) In a dry separation process, the improvement
which consists in dividing the the granular or pulverulent
material into a plurality of relatively uniform sizes, in
.6-
subjecting the separately eiaed particles in the form of
wide, tliin stroamn to the action of regular and uniform
blasts of air of different velocities dependent on the size
of material, and ift collecting the material concentrated-
toy the several blasts, substantially as set forth.
(8) In a dry separation process, the improvement
rhich consists in dividing the granular or pulverulent
material into a plurality of ralatively uniform sizes, in
subjecting the separately sized particles in the form of
wide, thin streams to the action of regular and uniform
blasts of air of different velocities dependent on the size
of material, in collecting the material concentrated by the
several blasts, and in subjecting the combined concentrate
to magnetic separation to remove magnetic particles, sub¬
stantially as set forth.
-7-
Ebis specification signeb anb wftnesseb tbis 25t,h bag of May 1903
. Thomas A. Edison
Mitncss :
Prank L. Dyer
2 . R.QMrt.....Ba.f.n.,
Oath.
State of
Count? of
New Jernev
Esnex
TKClviAS A, EDISON, tbe above-nanieb
petitioner, being bulg sworn, beposes anb sags tbat be is a citizen
of tbe United States, and a resident of Llewellyn Park, Orange,
In the county of Essex and State of New Jersey;
tbat be verilg believes bfmself to be tbe ordinal, first anb sole inventor of tbe
IMPROVEMENTS IN PROCESS OP DRY SEPARATION.
bescribeb anb clainteb in tbe annegeb specification ; tbat be boes not Imow anb boes
not believe tbat tbe same was ever Imown or useb bg others in tbe Elniteb States of
Hmerica before bis invention or biscoverg thereof ; or patenteb or bescribeb in attg
prlnteb publication in tbe Elniteb States of Hmerica or ang foreign countrg before bis
invention or biscoverg thereof, or more than two gears prior to tbis application ; or
in public use or on sale in tbe Elniteb States for more than two gears prior to tbis
application, anb tbat no application for patent upon saib invention bas been flleb bg
bfm or bis legal representatives or assigns in ang foreign countrg more than seven
months prfor to tbe filing of tbis application.
Sworn to anb subscribeb before me tbis
. ..Ih.Qmas....A......Edi.s.on . .
25 th bag of May 190 3.
.
motarg public.
H.B.O.
United States Patent Office, '
■ Washington, D. c., Jwie 89 , 3.905.
Thoiaas A, Hdiaoh,
Cara Prank 7.’.' pyer
’ •' ■ ' tfrtOJgb V'W.J.j'
, filed May 89 ' 1905 f for'fcrooeaa
II. a PATEin QFFulf '
'iKAtLEE):
of ; - Dry .Ifieparat ion .
•£ J!, ^L..
It is hot permissible to refer to another pending applioation
for a wore oonplete dieoloeure of the case at. bar) aae ax parte
- In line 8| page 4, the nuMoral8S aeame to ha Inoorroot .
Xt the.olains (except possibly 8) -were for a true preoesa,
tvrtiioh they are not and for that, reason are unpatentable, in view of
the decision in dunninghaa, Xh re." 108 GiG. * 884) they would be an-
tlolpated in View of ref erenoee eited beloir.
^.mair, iTeoite'e nothing nore thAh the f imotien.vef?*^
ahom^in the following patents! 55,851, Beadh, -Satfiu iCiMW&l ■
588,481, Jones, July 5, 1094* drain Separators, Gravity, A; 504,840,
Patterson, Aug. 89, 1895, Ore and Coal, Separators, Dry.
^ i ^ . Olato a ie reJeoted on the sane referenoee.
4.. Jjfaln 5 la fully anff ooHPlWteiy hnt'ib^
D 1890, Separators, Dry, whioh illustrates still aore strong¬
ly'" th«t this ei5bW^V%J#f a iiwohihe function, »a Wide thin strewn"
being ia neroly: relative limitation.
/ Xnartimbifihs the naferiai ib ito nors In a state of rest in ap¬
plicant* s base than in the usual dry Separator it seena necesaary
to objeot to thb use of that torn in the blaina. All applicant has
done has been to use « retarding Plate (see Beach f cited) on whioh
the Material piles up and over whioh it ^radtiaHy eli^ea' With a eon-
- ” Case No. Paper No. ✓ • I '
Sdtsoft - 9 #169, 5W7 T^T".
siderably reduoad velocity, sinoe the material will pile up «n |jK«f
plats 17 until its “angle of repose* is rsaohsd when it will ddh-
tinually slide down without ever reaching a “Biate of rest*.
In view of ths fast that no state of rept is rsaehbd texoept.
in the hopper before the .notarial is |ed to the Mast at, all) the
use of the tern "insuidiataly after isavine a condition of rest",
in claim 4, is objected to rb inoorreot and not in aocerffi&me; with
the facts. She olalm is rejeoted m^Oraig, in view of the feed
' ' shown in Beach, cited.
Olain 5 Is rejeoted on 578,811, Place, Dec. 1, 1596, Ore and
Coal, Separators, Dry, which shows two devices having gradually do-,
creasing openings in the line of travel of the blast for the purposed
of producing a blast of uniform yelooity throughout ite cross section.
The first, is the part 16 which is provided with holes 17 and lareor
air spaces around it, while the second is the screen 11.
Claim 6 is rejeoted as being completely anticipated by the
mere opecdtion of such machines as are shown by Patterson,, cited,
or 614,674, Patterson, Hov. 88, 1898, Separators, Dry. It Ji the
rule instead of the exoeptioh to else the material before it, is
fed to eubh raaohinbs as are shown above, aomplete machines for sis^-^
lng.and separating, being shown in the two following patentei
ti: 841,, Bush, July 19, 1898, Grain Separators, Gravity, *, and Sftl^aafl,
Marshall. May 4, 1897, Amalgamators, Mercury, li ln the first
maohlne it will be notioed that only the middle erade of material
falls through the air blast while in the second machine the finest
grads alone is treated by the separator. A series of blasts treat¬
ing the material, as the sifting takes plaee, are ehoen in Jones,
’ cited above, the regulating varies P providing the means to offset
the slsing sines their movement one eay or the other will determine
. .
• V .
the girade of material blown. over them, and the troughs If provide .
means for separately. redovering tho sevoral concentrates*; In view
of the foregoing, olaira 7 do rojootod.
Claim B books t,o be tho only claim of tho aorloc whloh might
bs'tsTjily olasaad as a "projjsfgS^ nut. an It Involves nothing more
than the addition to 1533, Guplln, Jan. fl, 1B»«, Separators, J)ry,
of the old step o * raagnetlo separation shown in similar machines
in the two Patterson patents, olted, the olalm is rejected.
*j«She application seems to present nothing patentable whatever.
Hxandner,
UNITED STATES PATENT OPPICE.
Thomas A. Edison
Improvements in Process
of Dry Separation.
Piled May 29th, 1903.
Serial No. 159,307
Hoorn No. 243.
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS.
Sir:-
Qh
In response to office action of June 29th, 1903
please amend the above entitled case as follows:
JPage 4, line 2 - cancel "23".
4Claim 3, line 3, cancel " as to equalize the" and
insert in place thereof - " plaoed with respect to the
blast passage as to produce a regular and Aniform".
Claim 3, line 4, cancel "equalized" and insert in
place thereof "regular and uniform".
^Claim 4, line 3, cancel "as to equalize the" and
insert in the place thereof" plaoed with respect to the
a
blast passage as to produce „ regular and unifonjt".
4 Claim 4, line 4, cancel "equalized" and insert in
place thereof "regular and uniform".
REMARKS.
In regard, to the expression "falling from a state
of rest" as applied to the material which is acted iipon by
the blast of air, applicant believes that this describes
oorreotly the conditions which exist. The material whioh
is delivered by the roller 16 rfalls upon the shelf 17 and
comes to rest. The naterial gradually works its way off
the edge of this 'shelf and rfalls into the air. blast. It is
■believed that all the particles of material actually come
to rest for & short period of time, but even if some of
the partioles do not, they movo so slowly that when they
leave the checking shelf the effect is the same as if they
had been at rest, and therefore, they be said even in this
case, to be practically at rest.
Applicant's claims are believed to oover patentable
processes .i-uid While it is true that tha processes olaimed
may be and preferably are performed by the use P a machine, K
this does not bring them within the class of unpatentable
mechanical methods. In all of such methods whioh have been
held to be unpatentable, so far as I am aware, the methods
consisted in operating upon material by meohanioal means to
change its form.
In applicant's invention a mass of material is acted
upon by a blast of air which may be produced by a meohanioal
blower, but the prooess depends for its operativeness upon
the inherent qualities of the particles of materials which
are treated, those of greater:; specific gravity being
separated from those of a Isiss speolfio gravity. THis
apparatus doss not tend to alter the particles of the matter
treated, but applies various physical forces suoh as the
air blast and the force of gravity tp' material, oonsi string
of partioles having different physical properties, so that
said foroes acting together are able to cause the inter¬
mingled particles to separate from each other and pursue’
different paths, The steps necessary to utilize these for¬
ces in a useful manner are, believed to constitute a true
prooesB and if novel the same should be patentable.
It is believed that none of the olaims are antici¬
pated by the references . In all prior devioes so far aB
applicant is afware, the separation which constitutes the
object of the devios , has been imper^Ct, Considerable per-
cent age of the gold pas Bing off with the gangue. This is
due to the fhot that the blaBt of air in these devices has
not been regular and uniform. It is impose! hie to produoe
a regular and uniform blast by means of a py of the struc¬
tures shown in the references. The blast of air will vary
in strength at different periods of time and the blast will
be irregular in different portions of the space in whioh
the material is treated.
In the applicant's device it will be noted that the
screens 13 and 14 extend entirely across the blast passage,
and the’ same is free from all enlargements or obstructions
which would tend to interrupt the blast and produoe £r regu¬
larities in the same, and it is a fact that in applicant’s
device the blast is made absolutely uniform and regular
so that perfect results are obtained. The references will
be considered in turn, and it will be shown that there is
no anticipation in any of them of the inventions claimed
JjWein.
In patent No. 33,231 to Beach, a grain separator is
shown. The only feature whirr ein this device appears to
bear any resemblance to that of applicant, is in the use
of a shelf for checking the motion of the material to be
treated, and in the use of an air blast. It will be no¬
ticed that the ifsjln opens dlreotly into the separating cham¬
ber by means of a large opening. The direction of the blast
will change as .the positions of the blades of the fan change
It is clear that the intensity of the blast will also
change with the', positions of the arms of the fan and the
shape of the blast chamber is suoh that the foroe of the
blast will va'ry it different points. These three features
will all tend to .make the blast exceedingly irregular and
not uniform. , . j
| In patent Ho. 343,901 to Craig, the blast leaves
the blast pipe or passage D and enters a large rectangular
ohamber which is provided with an opening covered by a
screen The patentee says the funotlon of this soreen
is to "break up and distribute the blast as it enters the
separator". This structure will produce a blast which
is irregular on account of the shape of the chamber C, add
the location of the blast pipe D. The lower portion of
the screen S’ is directly in front of the blast pipe, while
the upper portion of the screen is considerable above the
said pipe.. It is evident that the blast which issues
from the lower part of the screen will be stronger than
^ , shape of the
tnat issuing from the upper part,, furthermore.,. theAcham-
bor C will probably cause eddy currents of air to be set
up within the same ,. which will prevent uniformity in the
air blast..
In patent Ho. 479,241 to Bush,, the action of the
blast would be practically the same as in the Beaoh patent
previously oonsidered.,
In patent Hob,. 504,240 to Patterson, 522,421 to
tTonos,. 532,266 to Cuplin, 581,866 to Marshall, and 614iy874';
to Patterson, no attempt is made to regulate the blast
except in some cases by . the use of valves to regulate the
openings of the blast pipe and no screens are used, and
for this reason it would be impossible to obtain a regular
and uniform blast. Ao stated in applicant's specification
a blast of this character is retarded at the sides by
friotion with the walls, by which irregularities are pro¬
duced. v
In patent? Ho, 573,311 to Plaoe, there 1b no attempt
made to produce, a regular and uniform blast. The funnel
15 is used for spreading the air and giving the blast a
greater orossrB^otion. The slats 11 are for deflecting
-4*
the blast. They cause it to be deflected upward and down¬
ward in a cries-croBs manner, the patentee's object ap¬
parently being to permeate the material treated more tho¬
roughly than would be cb ne by a regular and uniform blast.
Thus the Patentee says that the air current will be "by 0
said slats projected in reverse directions^as to thorough¬
ly commingle with the particles of clay or other na terial
gravitating through the screen- frame".
For these reasons an allowance of the claims is
respectfully solicited.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas A. Rdison.
By
His Attorney,
Orange, Hew tTeris§y
April AS” 1904.
— Y-
United States Latent Office,
. %(t', -■ ^ WHi-TON.-D.c,. Aftril
Shoites.Ai ■sdAodU, ; : ' - r '•• -v\ 'V'' . ' • b; '
' Oar^;'Pr«nk;:r.. -'Dy«rv;- ■■• . ,4-?- .•••.■• f ~ ■ ■ ' *■'*- ''' u : APR' 301904 ' .
Case amended April Id ,1904.
TAs showing still further In MM.ii1.mn , to the record, that the
alleged pr <^oe as la for nothing more than the function of a maohino
see. patent 'ft, *97', Straub, July 17, 16 49 , drain Separatora^OreYity,
A. -It will too noticed that this patent, shows ovary essential. of '
applicant! a claims 1 to 4 and 7, the screening of the material, of
tha'iiat.tor claim, being a usual sipp prior to separat ion, shewn-
In this record. • •■,>;••.: ' ■
Claim S merely adda to this Machine, not. nraoeea. more.- screens
to equalise the blast at all points.
• Claim 6 is rejected as for a alnple function of the machine pre¬
viously oited againBt it.
Claim fl is for nothing more than a magnet le Reparation of the
combined oonoentrates following the slslng and separation^ shown b^
Ouplin of record^ or API, 033, Sterling, June P, 1900, Separators,
BryHx.-, It .. is old- as shown by 014, P74, natt eroon , of record,, -to fol¬
low an air separation with a magnetic .aeparation and ainpf ii: is
old as, -.shown by 704,010, Rdiaon, July 8, 1908, Kagnetifli 'Sefoarei.ors ,
to submit the oombined product, of a . aeparation to a magnetic sepa¬
ration, it ie not apparent that invention is required to oomhine the
oonoentrates from either (tuplin's or Starling's machines, and- treat
JMiflon - 3 #159, »G7
than to a WBfinfl tio aeparotion.
. The olatms ar« nllJraJ noted.
Should applicant. daaAre t,o appatil, ft final rciect.ion rill.hft
waited. '
Jbcundnar,
Pirlaion XT?.
at*. \>ro. /yd vf
Folio No. 54
Applicant.
Serial No. JM, /7f
. . (^wi, . .
: .
Filed- /P'f // Examiner's Room No
. *i . ’.. .
i7.:.
\ 18:...
:? J 4 . ./ .£ 19....
>•■ 5 . .*»., 20....
'• ••6..«^.^....^..f!^....!^^..<'..4;>..».^..^. 21....
.V 7...i^..^.....^....^..^V 22....
' 'V . . . /C. 23....
. • •■ 9...... . . v*Z . . 24....
■1Q^ . . .(\..^\l,.„^.,.v . ; 25....
FRANK L. DYER,
Counsel,
• ORANGE, NEW JERSEY
} 0hr<^
(P&yJt to
t^-f, .
/vx-w«^ * j~V!L»
— "J
£Jj-*
■• 'cp-o*-<w»
‘i*“
'i£»-'1^v^«'rfS
cJc^) .tr^t,
*|Jl |2^<r|*<;-Ci^ J^! r-~~'1'K <SX*-*~~ *•’'
%t~~~ ^rr1"’'
^MT2^ W“
\
'-T f
•ii ,
Folio No.
. 55
Applicant.
. J. &,
Serial No. /<£ <£/, ^ ^ &
. . . .
Jt'ij&hf . Examiner’s Room No . '^''7 *f .
Ass’g’t Exec..
. Recorded.
Page
Patent No...
ACTIONS.
h '....,v^£.t l yj-.c # tc^/u^yc. j 6 .
. 2 j y
3 18
4 . 9 .
■ . 5 <z/f* .
; kfy^.Ayu^-^^t. . .^ki^.(?.,jfa62\ .
’^.7 22 .
■ ■^...^ .
FRANK L. DYER,
Counsel,
Petition.
Go tbe Commissioner of patents :
ISour petitioner , THOMAS A. EDISON, a oitizen of the United
States, residing and having his post-office address at Llewellyn
Pari, Orange, Essex County, Nov/ Jersey, .
prags tbat letters patent mag be granteb to blm for tbe IMPROVED PROCESS
OP DUPLICATING TUBULAR SOUND RECORDS,
set fortb in tbe amteieb specification ; anb be berebg appoints tfranft %. ®ger (IRegis*
tratfon mo. 560), of Edison Xaboratorg, ©range, mew Jersey, bis attorneg, witb full
power of substitution anb revocation, to prosecute tbis application, to inalie altera*
tions anb amenbntents therein, to receive tbe . patent, anb to transact air business in
tbe patent office connecteb therewith. _
Case Paper No . /...
SPECIFICATION.
TO rntOM IT MAY COHCERN:~
BE IT KNOY/W, that I, Thoma3
A. Edison, of Iilev/allyn Park, Orange, in the County of Es¬
sex and State of Naw Jersey . have invented certain new and
useful improvements in Process of Duplicating Tubular Sound
Records (Cass No. 1,105), of which the following is a speci¬
fication:
Uy invention relates to processes of duplicating
tubular sound records hy a molding operation in continuous
molds, auu particularly to the removal of the finished or
partially finished duplicate after the latter has received
its impress i on from the mold. My object is to facilitate
the removal of such duplicates and to reduce the danger of
the duplicate being injured during its removal.
Heretofore ,, records of this character have been
duplicated by first, forming a suitable cylindrical mold,
carrying the record in relief on its bore, after which a
plastic duplicate has been produced therein, either by ex¬
panding a blank into engagement with the record surface,
or by casting molten material in the mold, or by dipping
a relatively cold mold in a molten material so as to pro¬
duce a coagulated layer of material on the mold, or by other
and analogous molding operations, and the duplicate has then
been removed by permitting it to cool to a sufficient ex¬
tent as to contract away fran the mold to clear the engag¬
ing surfaces and allow the duplioate to drop or he drawn
out.
I find, by making the mold very slightly tapering
(the extent being such that the duplicate can be distinguish¬
ed from a true cylinder only by the . vernier) , that the re¬
moval of the duplicate is facilitated, since a smaller ra¬
dial contraction permits Its removal, thereby necessitating
(1)
a reduced and more expeditious cooling of the mold and all oil¬
ing the duplicate to he removed in leas time than hereto¬
fore.
In order that my invention may he better under¬
stood, attention is directed to the accompanying drawing
forming part of this specification, and in v/hich:-
Figure 1 is a sectional view of a mold having a bore
tapered to the extent of ,010^ and shooing a. molded duplicale
record therein, and
Figure 2 a similar view, representing the mold and
duplicate at; having contracted by a reduction in tempera¬
ture, so an i.o permit the duplicate to be removed. In
both views the same parts are represented by corresponding
reference numerals.
The mold is: made in any suitable way , preferably
by first, coating a master record with an extremely thin
film of gold by a process of vacuous deposit, than electro¬
plating with copper to form a shell 1, and finally by bach¬
ing up the shell with, a brass jacket 2, the original mas¬
ter being subsequently removed by shrinking it out, all as
I describe in my patents Wo. 713,209 of November 11, 1902,
and Ho, 713,863, of November 18, 1902. The bore of the
mold is slightly larger in diameter at one end than at the
other, whereby the resulting duplicates will be correspond¬
ingly tapered, but the extend of this taper is not recog¬
nisable to the eye, and can be determined only by accurate
calipers. In the drawing 1 show the mold with a bora of
2.200 inches in diameter at one end, and 2.190 inches in
diameter at the other end, and with a length of about 4.5
inches, the-mold being in a heated condition. The taper
can, of course, vary considerably, say from .004 to ,012,
but it should always be slight.
(2)
The molding' operation is carried out in any com¬
mon and ordinary ■way, such, for example, as hy expanding a
heated blank into engagement with, the mold, as in my pat¬
ent, Mo. 713,209, before referred to, or hy casting molten
material within the mold, as described in my patent Ho.
667,062, of February 5, 1901, or by dipping a relatively
cold mold in a molten material to fora a coagulated coat-,
ing of the latter on the mold, as described in patent to
Miller and Aylsworth, ho. 633,616, of October 1, 1901.
After t.hR duplicate has been thus formed, it is preferably
removed by cooling until it has contracted sufficiently to
clear the engaging surfaces, but it may be contracted in
any other well known way. In the drawing 1 illustrate the
record as contracting .006 inch, and the mold E',s contract¬
ing .0002 inch, representing with ordinary materials a drop
in temperature of about 30° "P.
V/hat I claim is:
of duplicating tubui
which c onsista xn^f orrning e
tubular continuous raolcty^mbstantially as
.ar sound records,
in a slightly
and for the pur-
/ %. The process of duplicating tubular sound records,
' '' .
which, consists in forming a molded record in a slightly j
tubular continuous mold, and in finally contracting tho
duplicate so as to clear the engaging surfaces, and permit
the duplicate to be removed, substantially as set forth.
.^j The process of duplicating tubular sound records,
which consists in forming a molded record in a slight^y^ J
tubular continuous mold, and In finally cooling the dupli¬
cate so aB. to contract it and clear the engaging surfaces
to pemit the duplicate to be- removed, substantially as set
forth.
(3)
a molded duplicate
inn slightly from
et forth.
und records, having
gative representa-
stantially as set
(4)
TEbis specification signeb anb witnesseb tbls A** bag of 190^
Mitness :
1 1 . . 6^H^Hkr.. .
2 . _ . .
Oath.
State of \y^^r
(Count? of
THOMAS A. EDISON , tbe above=nameb
petitioner, being bttlg sworn, beposes anb sags tbat be is a citizen
of tbe United States, and r resident of Llewellyn Park, Orange,
in the County of Essex and State of New Jersey;
tbat be verilg believes blmself to be tbe original, first anb sole inventor of tbe
IMPROVED PROCESS OP DUPLICATING TUBULAR SOUND RECORDS,
bescrlbeb anb claimeb In tbe annejeb specification ; tbat be boes not Imow anb boes
not believe tbat tbe same was ever Imowit or useb bg others in tbe Vlniteb States of
Hmerica before bis Invention or biscoverg thereof ; or patenteb or bescrlbeb in ang
prlnteb publication in tbe Vlnlteb States of Hmerica or ang foreign countrg before bis
invention or biscoverg thereof, or more than two gears prior to this application ; or
in public use or on sale in tbe Vlniteb states for more than two gears prior to this
application, anb tbat no application for patent upon saib invention bus been ffleb bg
bint or bis legal representatives or assigns in ang foreign countrg more than seven
months prior to tbe filing of this application.
Sworn to anb subscribeb before me tbis
[Seal]
iSv/-
£>ae of 100 3.
. ^ .
IRotarg public.
j.R.n.
,om No . 370
Paper No . .I,li9:fc ter.
department of the interior,
United States Patent Office,
ihinqton, d. c„
Aug. 10,1 9
Thorns A. Miaou,
Cano STnnk &• Dyer ,
i?dison Laboratory ,
Orange, Row Jersey.
(use find below
n from the EXAMINER i?
U. S, PATENT OFFICE, *
J 411010 1903
mailed.
arge of your application,
for Process of Duplicating Tubular Bound Records, filed July a
19o3, ser. no. 160,620.
fi.J,
_ _ _ Commissioner of Patents.
Claims 1, 8 and 3 define a method of duplicating sound
reoords, claim 4 defines a sound record as an article and claim S
defines a mold.
It is held that each of these subjects matter constitutes
a distinct and separate alleged invention, and division on the
lines indicated is required.
Attention is invited to the patent of
Tat tor shall, Aug. 13, 1889,#408, 998, Gfrapho phones, Tablets.
Case No.
J^.PaperNO"
trail® STATES PATENT OPFICE.
Thomas A. Edison
Process of Duplicating
Tubular Sound Reoords.
Piled July 22nd, 1903.
Serial Ho. 166,520.
iRoom Ho .
379.
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS.
Sir:~
Replying to office action of August 10th,
1903, a reconsideration is requested. The subject matter
of the claims relates to a single unitary invention and
in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of Steinmetz vs. Allen 109 O.G., 549, it is believed that
the claims should be included In a single application.
An action on the merits is requested.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas A. Edison,
By
His Attorney.
Orange, Hew Jersey.
April AT 1904.
Paper No. ...Scatter.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
United States Patent Office,
Washington, d. c. April 20,1904.
Thomas A. Edison,
Cara prank .Tj# Jlyer,
.Alison Laboratory ,
Orange ,jjew Jersey .
u. s, mm office,
APR 28 1904
MAILED.
Please find below a communication from the EXAMINER in charge of your apjj _
for Process of hup l ie at in jp Tubular Round noaords, filed Ju^y^S^
serial numoor 1365, 620.
This action is in response to the letter filed the 16th
instant.
Applicant is believed to be in error with reference
to the provisions of the decision in the oaso of StineaetiS vs
Allen cited by him. Tho only point Judicially decided in that
case ’.ms that upon a final requirement of division an ap*iLiaarifc‘
is entitled to an appeal to the Board of £xarainer8-ih- Chief '
inetoadTof having the' right to petition the C<»:«issioner de was"
the practice before that decision was made. The other, natters
referred to by the court in the oaee referred to were me rely T
dlota and they have not the effect of a judicial decision as a
precedent . ;
The f orner requirement is repeated.
UNITED STATES PATENT OPEICE,
Thomas A. Edison
Process of Duplicating Tubular
Sound Records
Piled July 22, 1903
Serial No.; 166,520
Room No. 379
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS.
Sir: —
Replying to Office action of April 28,
1904, ;a reoonsideration of the Examiner's requirement
is requested.
The Examiner is believed to be in error in re¬
gard to the point decided by the Supreme Court in the
case/steinmetz vs-_ Allen cited. A careful perusal of the
opinion of the Court shows that the Court considered not
only applicant's remedy in case of a final requirement of
division, but also applicant's right to unite process and
apparatus claims in a single application. The decision
upon this latter point is not a diotum of the Court, since
tile opinion expressly states that the question of appli¬
cant's remedy in suoh a oase depends upon the question
as to his right to uhite suoh claims, and the latter
point was therefore necessarily determined first. It is
obvious that this must be the case, since a person oan
not have a remedy unless he has some right whioh is to be
secured by the remedy. That this is the correct interpre¬
tation of the decision of the Supreme Court would appear
to be inevitable in view of the following language used
by the Court :
"The issue is well defined between the parties
both as to the right and remedy, in the Patent Office.
As to right, petitioner contends that a union by an
inventor of process and apparatustfolaims , which are
essentially the same invention, is given by the patent
laws, and that Rule 41, so far as it takes that right
away, is repugnant to those laws and invalid. As to
remedy, that the deoision of the Primary Examiner, con¬
stituted a final decision upon the case and petitiober
waB entitled to an appeal under the patent laws to the
Board of Examiners-in-Chief . The latter::- nronositl nrrn
depends upon the first. - - - — -
XXX X- XXX X
"A ruling having suoh effect must be considered
as final and appealable. Whether, however, to the
ExaminerB-in-Chief or to the Commissioner, and from
the latter to the Courts, we may postpone answering un-
— have considered the~Tig5t "of ^ -
In view of this decision, applicant does not be¬
lieve that he should be put to the expense of An appeal
unless the Examiner is of opinion that the subject
matter of the claims doeB not relate to a single uni¬
tary invention.
Respectfully submitted
Thomas A. Edison
By
c 0 A /
Orange, N. J. His Attorney.
June, (o ,1904.
v. _ Room ...5.7.9
Paper No._fiiIiSA0cti0n.
department or the interior.
United States Patent Office,
Washington, d. c., Jun8 35,1904,
Thomas A. .Mi 3 on,
Oars 3?r.TrJ: J, T)y or,
.“’(UHon laboratory,
Orango,2Tew Jersey.
tJ, S PAT7.HT OFFICE,
JUN 23 1904
& ^
/ y,M
Please find below a communication from, the EXAMNER in oharge of your application A
for Process of implicating Tubular Sound Reconi s,"filod Julv^flfifNvfe
1 903, be rial number 1 <35, 580.
Commksmer of Patents.
This a-jtionis in response to the argument filed tho
7th instant.
Olai/as 1, 3 and 3 are rejected in view of tho patent of
3d is bn, Nov. 1 1,1903, #713,309, (181-16) , and the patent of ITaas JHay
15, 1838, #383, 974, Pipe Machines it being held that it being an
old and vrall known expert lent to provide tapering molds for the
more ready removal of the molded article, it could not destitute
patentable invention to provide a tapering mold for the present
' purpose.
Ola.in 4 ia rejected in view of the patont of Stevens,
May 89, 1900, {3550, 431 , (181-16).
Claim 5 ia rejected for want of invention,in view of the
grounds of rejection of claim 1.
TOUTED STATES PATENT OFFICE,
Thomas A. Edison
PROCESS OF DUPLICATING TUBULAR
SOUND RECORDS
Filed Juljr 22, 1903
Serial No. 166,520.
: Room No. 379.
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS
SIR:-
Replying to Office action of June 23,
190'4, please amend the above entitled case as follows:
Cancel claims 1, 4 and 5,
Claim 2, line 2, after "slightly" insert —
tapering.
Claims^, line 2, after "slightly" insert --
tapering.
Renumber claims 2 and 3 as 1 and 2 respective¬
ly.
REMARKS
The claims as now drawn are considered patentable.
The object of the invention is to facilitate the removal
of the duplicate record from the mold. In order that the
surface of the duplicate may clear the mold, it is necess¬
ary that the duplicate shrink: sufficiently to allow its
surface to clear all portions of the surface of the mold.
In the patent of Haas of reoord, there is no
shrinkage of the molded artlole and no effort 1b made to
obtain a olearanoe between the molded artiole and the walls
of the mold, so that if one were to remove a sound record
from the mold in the manner described in the said patent,
the record would be entirely destroyed.
In Patent Ho. 713,209 of record, a process
is disclosed by which a duplicate record may be removed
from the mold by shrinkage and relative longitudinal move¬
ment. The reoord and mold, however, described in this
patent do not taper. The presort invention is believed
to be an improvement over that of the patent, since it per¬
mits more ready removal of the reoord and decreases the
proportions of -records destroyed at this stage of manu¬
facture. The removal of phonograph records from molds
without injury is a difficult matter, and any improvement
by which the difficulty is lessened and the proportion
of discards reduced is a step in advance. The present
process has been arrived at after careful study of the
problem, and is thought to be unobviouB because the ^rt of
molding phonograph records requires the preservation of
minute elevations and depressions, and ordinary methods of
molding or of removing molded articles from their molds
cannot be used.
An allowance of the olaims is respectfully so¬
licited.
Thomas A. Edison
By
His Attorney. •
Orange, New Jersey,
June <&o 1905.
J.H.I).
D i v. __.__.2S Room. _ .579
“The Commlwtoner of Potent*,
department of the Interior,
United States Patent Office,
Washington, d. c., 80,1905.
J. 5. PATENT OFFICE,
JUL 20 1905
MAILED,;'
Thomas A. Edison,
care uranic L» iDyer,
Edison laboratory,
orange, new jersey.
• Y'," W Me '■
Please find, below a, communication from the EXAMINER in charge of your application,
for Process" of Duplicating Tubular Round Records, filed. July 22,'
1903, ser.no. 166,520. '' ''$§($£
This action is in response to the amendment filed the
21 at ultimo.
The office a an see nothing of patentable invention in
the alleged processes claimed in view of the prior art disclosed.
To moJco the mold tapering in any of tho apparatus in
which records are m$ide and contracted or shrunk from tho mold,
xtaexxixgxx clearly involving as it doos the use of a cannon
expedient in the molding arts, oarmot be considered n patontablg^;,
invent ion.
. . Claims 1 and 2 have not boon varied in substance by ’ ' ‘ '
correcting an obvious error in each as has been done in the last
action by amlicant and accordingly since the issue seems to be
clearly defined and understood by both applicant and the office,
the claims must be finally rejected in view of the former grounds
of rejection .
•" . • - yS 1
J-0 ✓'-<£- ^5-1?
/
~boos~ ^ 9° ° ^ > y&O .
$0 Cl^/U^ *UJT
^ ,7-6//
.(50/
z'
<£> •
,0 2-7- %0 <2. ? fa Me>°
■ <y\. cdw^.o az, . ..^t^; /*? *
Go the Commissioner of (Patents :
ISour petitioner' , THOf.fAS A. EDISON, a citizen of the United
States, residing- and- having.: his. post-office address at Llewellyn
Park, Orange, Essex County, 'New Jersey,
prags tbat letters patent mas be granted to btm for tbe IMPROVEMENT IN
SCREENING PLATES
set fortb in/tbe annexed specification ; and be berebg appoints jfranls %. JDger (IRegis*
tration Wo. 560), of Edison Xaboratorg, ©range, Wew Serseg, bis attorneg, witb full
power of substitution and revocation, to prosecute tbis application, to ntaRe altera-
tions and amendments tberein, to receive tbe patent, and to transact all business in
tbe patent office connected tberewftb.
V
! P E C I I I C A I;I 0 N .
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: -
BE IT KNOWN that 1, Thomas A. Edi¬
son, of Llewellyn Parle, Orange, in the County of Essex,
State of New Jersey, have invente’d certain improvements in
Rnrnfininf PI .ate s TTn. of which the following is|
a description:
My invention relates to improvements in screens
of the type formed hy punching slot? or holes in metal
plates, and my object is to provide a screening plate of
this kind which will be of much higher capacity than plates
as no v/ made .
In the manufacture of screening plates prior to
my invention the aim has been to select material solely
with regard to the question of durability, and in the case
of very fine screens the material selected has been limited
in thickness apparently only by the capacity of the punches
to properly form the screening openings. It may be. stated,
generally, as illustrating the practice followed before my
invention, that with screens of a minimum mesh, plates of
a maximum relative thickness have been employed, sometimes
almost double the width of the screening openings, while as
the mesh increases the proportionate thickness of the plates
has not been retained; 30 that in the case of considerably
coarser screens the width of the screening openings becomes
equal to the thickness of the plates, while in the oaBe of
very coarse screens the width of the screening openings is
several times greater than the thickness of the plates.
In this practice, however, manufacturers have been guided
solely by the question of durability and not of efficiency.
Suoh prior soreens have, in faot, been extremely ineffi-
(1)
V
slant, and, in some instances, only from ten to twenty per
cent, of particles sufficiently fino to pass through the
screening qpe'ningB do, in fact, pass through such openings.
Owing to the low efficiency of these prior screens it be¬
comes necessary, in order that the desired loads may be
handled, that the screening surface should be very exten¬
sive; and, in consequence, in plants using screens on a
large scale, the screen house is generally a relatively
large building, representing a heavy investment. A screen¬
ing operation, carried out under such circumstances, is
necessarily an expensive one.
I have determined from experiments that the
screening capacity of a screening plate depends almost en¬
tirely upon the thickness of the plate, and 1 have found
that in order to secure the maximum efficiency the plates
should be of a minimum thiokness, and preferably very much
thinner than the width of the screening openings. At the
present time sheet iron or steel cannot be secured in plateB
of an available size thinner than .006 of an inch, and in
this material I have formed screening openings ranging
from .009 of an inch up to .15 of an inch. In the latter
case the thickness of the plates has been only one twenty-
fifth of the width of the screening openings, while in the
former case the thickness of the plates is two-thirds the
width of the screening openings. In the case of the last
mentioned screen, it is impracticable at the present time
to use material less than .006 of an inch in thickness because
material
thinnerAis not available, but more efficient results would
be secured if metal only .001 of an inoh, or even-less,
cbuld be obtained. The possible thinnesB of metal which
oan be actually used is determined also to a certain ex¬
tent by the oharacter of material being screened, it being
(2)
'U '
obvious that in the screening of a very gritty, erosive
material like iron Ore the wear on a very thin plate would
he more object! onable than in the case of a soft material,
such as a ground Portland cement mixture or "chalk" pre¬
vious to calcination. When, however, the plate is thick
enough to resist ordinary wear and strong enough to support
the load without objectionable buckling, I find that the
question of durability is unimportant, sinoe the immensely
greater efficiency of the screen makes their cost practical¬
ly negligible. Por example, in one set of soreens which I
have used in practice, I passed more than fifty thousand
tons of material over each screen before the latter became
worn sufficiently as to require removal, and each screen
was then replaced at a cost of less than two dollars.
Moreover, I find that when an attempt is made to secure
durability by the employment of thicker metal, the effi¬
ciency of the screen is so reduced that although the screen
lasts longer, no more material passes through it before it
becomes worn out than would he the case with a very thin
screen of much greater efficiency. Por this reason, my im¬
proved soreens, when made of metal as thin as practicable
to give the necessary strength, are not only enormously
more efficient and consequently more rapid in action, hut
they are practically as durable, so far as capaoity is con¬
cerned, as the very much thioker soreens which were made
prior to my invention. By thus providing a screen of sub¬
stantially equal durability and of enormously greater effi¬
ciency than those heretofore used, 1 am enabled to secure
the same screening effect, so far as hulk of screened matter
is concerned, .by the employment of a greatly reduoed screen
surface, and, in oonsequence, am enabled to construct a
screening plant at far leBs cost. than has heretofore been
possible.
(3.)
V
M; y invention, therefore, consists of a screen
formed of screening openings, preferably slots, in a metal
plate of the minimum practicable thickness, whereby its
efficiency will bo greatly increased without a proportionate
sacrifice of surabillty, and the invention preferably con¬
sists of such a plate having a case-hardened screening sur¬
face and a malleable central portion, all as 1 shall here¬
after describe and claim.
It is the object of rny invention to obtain a very
high screening capacity resulting from the use of plates of
a minimum practicable thickness without a proporti onate
sacrifice of durability^ In order that my invention may be
better understood attention is directed to the accompanying
drawings forming a part of this specification, and in which
Figures 1, 2 and 3 are cross-sectional views of screen¬
ing plates embodying my present invention on a greatly en¬
larged scale ; and
Figure 4, a similar view illustrating the preferred
process which 1 carry out for the partial hardening of such
plates. In these views corresponding parts are represented
by the same letters of reference.
A, represents a t.hin sheet iron plate, which is prof
forably suitably hardened as I will explain, and which is pr if
vided with orificeB, preferably Blots a. The relation be¬
tween the thickness of the plate A, and the width of the ori¬
fices a, is such that the former ..dimension is less, and pre¬
ferably, very much less, than the latter. In Figure 1, I
show a plate which is indicated as being ,Q30 of an inch in
thickness, and having slots a, therein, each of which is in¬
dicated as being of the width of one inch. In Figure 2, I
show a plate which is indicated as being .006 of an inch in
thickness, and having slots a, therein, which, are indicated
aB being of the width of .160 of an inch. In Figure 3 I
show a plate which is indicated as being .006 of an inch in
_ (4) _ _ _
V
thickness, and having slots a, therein, whioh are indicated
as being of the\ thickness/ .009 of an inch. This latter
screen may be considered as representing the minimum width
or fineness of mesh, and as representing the maximum ratio
between the width of. slot and the thickness of the plate.
1 have pointed out that at the present time metal less than
.006 of an inch is not available, but, if such metal could
be Becured it should be employed. From this minimum width
'Of slot the screens may be increased in mesh until with the
same thickness of plate screens having slots .150 of an
inch wide are formed, as shown in figure 2, As the width
of the slots is increased beyond this latter figure the
thickness of the plates should also preferably be somewhat
increased, so as to give them the desired stiffness, but in
every case the aim. should be to make the plates just as thin
| as possible so long as they are strong enough to support
the load, and stiff enough as not to buckle immediately
j under the weight of the load. In every case the best re-
| suits are secured in practice when the ratio between the
width of screening openings and the thickness of the plates
l is greatest, and, preferably, when such width is thirty or
more times greater than such thickness.
fit#*®1 The reason why my improved screens are more effi¬
cient than the screens used prior to my invention iB that
with the latter, the relatively thiok plates become clogged
with partioles of the material in process of screening, thus
reducing the screening capacity in a very short time to al¬
most nothing; whereas, if the plate is extremely thin, it
does not become clogged and can be operated for weeks with¬
out cleaning.
In making my j improved: soreens 1 prefer to proceed
substantially a3 follows:
* -jt^ ®ie sheet iron plate A, is secured and the orifi-
(5)
■u
ces a, are formed therein, preferably, by a punching process
with gang dies or punches. The plate, after having been
punched with the orifices, is then dipped in a bath of molt¬
en cyanide of potassium for a few seconds. It is then with¬
drawn and immediately laid upon a flat iron plate, such as
B, (Figure 4), over .which is located a corresponding plate
C, which is allowed to drop upon the punched plate A. The
sudden chilling to which the plate A, will be subjected by
coming into contact with the larger masses of the plateB
B and C, serves to harden the plate A, and to keep it per¬
fectly flat until cooled. Any tendency of the plate A, to
warp or buckle during the cooling process is thus overcome.
After the punched plate A, i3 sufficiently cooled it is then
immersed in a water bath to dissolve all of the cyanide of
potassium, and after this hath it is dried and oiled in any
suitable and usual manner. Ab a specific instance of a con¬
venient process for the proper hardening of plates .006 of
an inch in thickness and having 3lots therein each of a
width of ,009 of an inch, I will state that the plate may
be allowed to remain in the molten bath of cyanide of pot¬
assium for thirty-five seconds, and during this period the
iron will become carbonized to a depth of about .001 of an
inch on each side. The surface hardening to which the
screening plate will be thus subjected between the plates
B and C, will be of a very high order, while, at the same
time, the inner portions of the plate will be left suffi¬
ciently soft and pliable us to allow the plate to be bent
or otherwise manipulated. If the plate were allowed to re¬
main too long in the bath of cyanide of potassium it would
be rendered object! onably brittle, since the absorption of
carbon would progress entirely through the same.
Instead of the special surface hardening above
described for the proper hardening of soreening plates of
(6)
tills specific character, it will he understood that surface
hardening of such screens may he carried out hy the usual
method of cementation hy packing the plateB in charcoal,
leather etc. 1 consider the process above described to he
preferable, however, since it is more expeditious, and the
depth of carbonisation is under entire control.
Having now described my invention, what 1 claim as
new and desire to secure hy letters patent is as follows:
1. As a new article of manufacture, a screen having
openings formed in a ’ plate of minimum thickness, less than
the width of said openings and sufficient only to offer
proper support to the material passed .over . the same , sub¬
stantially as and for the purposes set forth.
2. As a new article of manufacture , a screen having
slots formed in a plate of minimum thickness, less than the
width of said slots, and sufficient only to offer proper
support to the material passed over the same, substantially
as and for the purposes set forth.
3. As a new article of manufacture, a screen having
openings formed in a plate of minimum thickness, less iij
width than said openings, sufficient only to offer proper
support to the material passed over the same, and having a
case-hardened screening surface and a malleable central
portion, substantially as and for the purposes set forth.
This specification signed and witnessed this
day of July, nineteen hundred three
In Presence of
(7)
OATH.
State of Hew Jersey, • :
County of Essex, 4
Thomas A.^Edison, the above named petitioner, be¬
ing duly sworn, deposes and says, that he is a citizen of
the United States and a resident of Llewellyn Park, Orange,
in the County of Essex and State of Hew Jersey; that he
verily believes himself to be the original, first and sole
inventor of the improvement in screening plates described
and claimed in the annexed specification; that the same in¬
vention was originally described and claimed by him in an
application for letters patentfiled June 29, 1899, serial
Ho. 722,229, which application is still pending in the
Patent Office; that he proposes to abandon his said original
application (but not the invention thereof) in favor of the
new application based on the annexed specification; that
he does not know and does not believe that the invention
which is described and claimed in the annexed specification
was ever known or used by others in the United States of
America before his invention or discovery thereof; or pat¬
ented or ddtsoribed in any printed publication in the United
States of America or any* foreign country before his inven¬
tion or discovery thereof, or prior to June 29, 1897, or
in public use or on sale in the United States prior to June
29, 1897; and that no application for patent upon said in-
R *
vention has been filed by him or his legal representatives
or assigns in any foreign country.
Sworn and subscribed to be- •
fore me this l &C?£, day of \
July, 1903.
3—300.
1
department of the Interior,
United States Patent Office,
Washington, D. C., AUg.19,1903.
Thomas A. Jtdiaon, fi) S WTBuT
8a r* Frank L. Dyer, . ..AUG19 1^' ■
Orange, <*W.n ov v;v V ■ ' • • I
■ beiowW'iUfomuiiic&Hon-from tte'EX'AmHERin 'oliarga ifi-you* olpplicatibsi;:^-
#167 , 989 ,f IX ed Aug . 1, 1903, for Born (mine W.a tee *
Commissioner of Patents.
Tha words *dase 31108* must be taken out of the apooifioRtion -
9«o ox part# Ball, 100 0.0., 8608.
Rho history, of tha prior art, las', paragraph, png* i,
continuation of sane, page 8, should bo atrioken from t.ha speolfloa-
t ion as not pertinent to the disclosure of tha present aaae} see
ex parts Sohwaltsor, 97 0.0., 1871. 7
She olaims are rague and Indefinite, and are not In any way
suoh ,*apeolfio and dlatlnot oiains* as are required by Rule 87.
Ooreens of suoh relative thickness and hash as applioanb de¬
scribes are desoribod in lines 88 to 93, of 87^318, Edison, April
/ 2, Kills, Ore and Coal, Sifters and Screens, A, end since this
patent was issued wore than two years prior to the tine of f iling of
t|».i»; »ra>lidft won it. forms a publication dedicating the use of tha
1 sat|S:^o;.the pufaW. Claims! and 9 are re Jested. ■ .
...flljaiw 3 is rejected on the asu referehdbf sintra it is the oom-
( ) non practice to oase harden any article that may be subj ected to
considerable wear. . Exactly applicant’s process of ease-hardening
v-:;c -.'v. for Manufftcturera.-z,^. Mechanics
plates is old,, as showii in Look’s "Workshop. ReeeiptS^d Ralahtlflo
1 to^tdura*, 3rd aeries, pages #74 and #81. Whanher. suoh plates ars
pf aroTiot used involves nothing more than neohenleal skill or desire.
Inasmuch as this apjiiioatlon presents not the slightest patsitf-
abl enoYolty^ thi S' action may be Considered final, ^f desired, fo*f ’
: /7 ' : '' CascN»,.^7.^perNo.-^ .
mum - a #x«7,9aa
purpoaaa of ft spool.
Sha alala'a arc also raj eat ad on tha aane rowiono and ref er-
anooa m the olaina in applicant* a oaaa, #733,389* filed June 39,
1899,.
Exaninar,
niriaion XX7.
Ca'X Nu.
£7..H^: No . L
UNITE# STATES PATENT OFFICE.
Thomas A. Edison, ;
Screening Plates, :
: Room No. 315,
Filed August 1, 1903, :
Serial No. 167,929. S
HON.. COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS,
Sir:-
I note that the examiner
objects to the statement of the prior art on pages 1 and 2
of the specification. In many oaseB a' proper -recitation
of the prior art is; helpful to a clearer understanding of
the later invention, and this seems to he the case in the
present application. The statements to whioh the examiner
objects show that in the practice of the art prior to ap¬
plicant's invention the users of screens proceeded along
lines diametrically opposed to those followed by Mr. Edison.
These statements, therefore, tend to support the patentable
character of the new Boreens. It is, of course, recognized
that in the oase of any invention depending for its novelty
on proportions, size, materials etc., much greater diffi¬
culty is experienced in demonstrating patentability than in
the case of inventions which present new structural features
or combinations. Consequently, in the former oase it is
submitted that good practice Bhould permit an applicant to
refer to the prior art and the practice, therein in order
that his invention might be more clearly differentiated
therefrom. Of course, if the statements to whioh the exam¬
iner objects are inaccurate then they should undoubtedly
be erased, but as these statements are not criticised it is
presumed that the exaininer agrees with their correctness.
It is not seen that the decision of the present
(1) Case Nu..h(Z.. Paper No .
Commissioner in ex parte Schweitzer, C. D. 1901 - 179,
hears particularly on the present case. In that case the
claims we re clearly objectionable on the ground of prolix¬
ity, and if they were not prolix then they were dearly
lacking in definition. Section 48-88 of the Revised Statutes
provides that an applicant "shall particularly point out
and distinctly1 :claim the part, improvement or combination
which he claims as his invention or discovery". Under this
statutory requirement the universal praotice is to make the
claims as definite and concise as possible and omit all un¬
necessary verbiage. The same Bection of the statute also
provides that in the case of the specification the appli¬
cant shall "distinguish it (his invention) from other in¬
ventions". Under this general language of the statute ap¬
plicants are given more or less latitude in the way in whicl
they seek to distinguish their inventions from the prior
art. It would seem reasonable to suppose that the best way
to distinguish the invention from the prior art would be to
. the prior, art and then to describe
first explain the new invention in order that the difference
between the two might be appreciated. It is hoped, there¬
fore, so far as this formal requirement is concerned, the
examiner will withdraw the same.
It is noted that the examiner also objects to
the claims as' being vague and indefinite. The fact is apprer
ciated that the claims are not as clear out as applicant
would like them to be, but this difficulty arises largely
from the oharacter of the invention. Undoubtedly, appli¬
cant has done something that was never done before, and as
the result of the departure has secured superior results.
Applicant’s invention is certainly, therefore, 'character¬
ized by' novelty and utility.
The only other question for determination in con¬
sidering the point of patentability is whether or not the
(2,
II
changes made by applicant amount to Invention. In the con¬
sideration of this question I direct the examiner's atten¬
tion to the faot that what applicant has done is the direct
reverse of what had been done before him, and the direct
reverse of what skilled persons would be expected to do.
In other words, prior to applicant' 3 invention it was sup¬
posed that the best screens would be those which were re¬
latively thick in order to secure great durability, that
being the important desideratum. Eor this reason, the
screens made before applicants invention were formed of
material as thick as possible, and selected generally with
reference to the capacity of the punches. What applicant
did was to use the thinnest material possible so long as
the load would be properly carried. The question of wear
was not considered at all, but the question of efficiency
was alone considered. As the result of this departure ap¬
plicant has produced a screen which is not only enormously
more efficient than the screens which preceded his inven¬
tion, but which so far as oapacity is concerned is prac¬
tically as durable as those which preceded him. Consequent¬
ly, with' the new screen applicant is enabled to effect
and
enormous saving in spaceA economy in screening houses in
large commercial undertakings necessitating screening oper¬
ations on a large settle.
So far as the particular language of the olaims
is concerned applicant has no particular preference or
hide-bound adherence to the same, and would be grateful if
the examiner can suggest any language which would be more
suitable to his views.
So far as the merits of the olaims are concerned,
I note that the examiner rejects the same on Edison's prior
application, No. 371,316} but the examiner's attention is
Case No .
(3)
II
called, to the fact that this application is a continuation
of applicant's prior case, filed June 29, 1899, serial Ho.
722,229, which, therefore, carries applicant's date of fil¬
ing ahead of the patent already issued.
Reconsideration of the oase is respectfully re¬
quested.
Orange, IT. J.
August 25, 1903.
Thomas A. Edison,
His Attorney.
J7. .
(4)
United States Patent Office, , r T
Washington, d. c., Bept. 86,>1993. '
Thomas A. Edison,
Car* Prank T.. Bynr,
Orange, N.J.
Please find below a communication from the EXAMINER in charge of ymcr'apptiaiHoh,
#3.(57,989, filed Aug. 1, 1903, for Screening Plates.
RJ. aSLr..
_ Commissioner of Patents.
\C,V;v . '
Case amended Aug. 86, 1903.
Who words "case No. 1108* must, ha erased from the specification.
The objsation to last paragraph, pane 1, and its continuation, fcr>&6S
8, Is repeated; it. Is, moreover, open to argument., in view of the
record An this oasa, whether it, has boon tha praotioo previous to
this' .invention to use plates of a "maximum relative thioknase - .
— , ...sonatinas almost double tha width of tha screening openings". _
In view of the patent to Cross, 383,038, Kay 80, 1897, Ore and Goal,
flifters and Screens, 0, oitad in oaaa Ho. 788, 889, the latter state¬
ment is shown to bo far from aoourata. Ab to applicant i s statement
that, the present oasa is a continuation of application, serial number
? 88/889, for tha sumo subjeotlraatter, and which has bean fi.na3.ly re¬
jected by examiner, and tha rejection affirmed by both the Board of
Examiners in Chief end the Commissioner, it may be. said that. it. is
contrary to the faots of reoord. This case is a separate, and in¬
dependent oase, bearing no such relation to the previous oaae at. all.
If claims of the scope of the present claims are to be prosecuted in {&
the face of -the ’'disclosure of. patent. 671,316, they muat be presented
in an applioation which properly antedates that, case, and not in a
oaae filed more than two years after that, patent was issued.;
It is old, as shown in the patent to Croes, cited, and 866,386
Oastler, Haroh 81, 1888, Sifters and floreens, C, cited in the earlier
Case N0....O . Prpcr i'lo .
oa an, to provide screen surfaces with openings nuoh greater in their
lateral dimensions then the thickness of the material f rom which the
soreen has been made.
Claims 1 and 8 are again rejeoted on the reasons and references
of record.. It is old as shown to oase harden plates, it. so happens
to exaotly applicant’s way (but how is immaterial) for any purpose,
and it is not invention to punoh soreens from suoh material whether
thick or thin. In addition to the above, ae showing the utter lack
of patentable novelty presented in this application still further,
there oan be found on file in the Scientific Library of the Patent
office a trade oatalogue of Praser and Chalmers, for 1P93, filed
Oot. 16, 1693, on the snbjeot of screening plates. On page P ooours
the following t - "We furnish this work in - any thickness from
Bo. 30, wire gauge to fa inoh, with else perforations proportioned
to the thiokness of metal1* etc. fable III, paee 9, gives suoh a
sheet of a thiokness somewhat over .01 of an inoh. In instructions
on ordering it is stated that the “size sheets and kind of metal,
thiokness of metal, shape and size of perforations* should be care¬
fully,' stated. on pages 83 and 33 are shown a series of outs frm
actual screens having slots much greater in width then the metal
in which it was stated the soreens could be furnished, and it. is to
be- presuroed-th-at such screens oould ba furnished on an order with¬
out quest, loh. While applicant, states that, he uses sheets of .008
of an ip Oh in thiokness, that is merely a matter of degree and in¬
volves no patentable novelty whatever.
Inasmuch as it is impossible for examiner to see anything pat¬
entable whatever in this application, it is hoped this action will
be considered final for the purpose of appeal..
Xxaniner,
division TXT.
UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE,
Thomas A. Edison :
Screening Plates :
Room No. 315.
Filed August 1, 1903 :
Serial No. 167,929 :
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS.
Sir: —
Replying to Office action of September 25,
1903, please amend the above entitled case by cancelling
"(Case No. 1,108)", in line 4 of page 1.
Applicant requests that the reference to Edison
patent No. 671,316 of April 2, 1901 as an anticipation of
the claims, be withdrawn for reasons previously stated.
’//Nile it is true that the present application
differs to some extent from applicant 'aboriginal applica¬
tion covering the same, invention, the present applica¬
tion is a continuation of the former application. The
present application was filed while the original applica¬
tion was pending, and the oath td the present application
states that applicant proposes to abandon the original
application (but not the invention thereof) in favor, of -ohe
present application. This state of facts is similar to
those in the case of International Tooth Crown Company vs.
Richmond, decided by Judges Wallace and Shipman in the
U'.S . Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York,
reported in 39 O.G., 1550. In that case a defense was set
lip that the invention had been in public use for more than
two years before the application for the patent, and there¬
fore, the patent was invalid. The public use took place
during the latter part of 1877, and the application upon
which the patent was granted was filed December 20, 1880.
The Court stated that "the defense would be established
were it not for the fact that Low had made an applica¬
tion which was filed January 6, 1879, which had never been
abandoned for substantially the same invention." "That
application contained some matters foreign to the subject
of the second’ application; but so far as it related to
the inventions covered by the claims of the patent, it did
not differ from the Becond application, except in a sin¬
gle particular." The original application had bean re¬
jected by the Examiner, and various interpolations
had been made therein, and it was suggested by the Exam¬
iner that the applicant had better make a new application
and thereupon the second application was drawn up dififer-!-
ing, as before stated, to some extent from the original
application, but as there had been no acquiescence on the
part of the applicant in the rejection of his first appli¬
cation and the first application had not been abandoned
at the time of the filing of the second application, the
whole procedure was held to be one continuous proceeding,
the Court using the following language:
"There was no aot on the part of Low which
was equivalent to a withdrawal of his first appli¬
cation, or to an acquiescense in its rejection. He
merely made a flew application as a more convenient
way of presenting the original application for the
of the offioe after he had been assured
that the rejection of his first application would be
reconsidered and a patent would be granted for the
present invention. Both applications are to be con¬
sidered as parts of one continuous proceeding, and
the two years within which the invention could hot
be pubiidy used without invalidating the patent did
not begin to run until January 9, 1879. (Godfrey v
Eames, I Wall., 317; Smith v. Goodyear Co;, 93 U.S.
500; Graham v. Genera Lake Co., 11 Eed.Rep.138.)"
- 2 -
The same principles were also recognized by Jud¬
ges Ache son and Buffington in the U.S. Circuit Court for
the Y/e stern District of Pennsylvania in Dederick vs.
Pox, 63 O.C., 1963. The following language used by the
Court is pertinent to the present case:
"Ho?/ these facts evidence abandonment we oannot
see. Par from being a giving up it was a most
persistent pursuit, a continuous demand for the claims
first asked for. The substantial elements of the in¬
vention were Bet forth in the original application,
claims broad enough to cover the features of inven¬
tion 6mb raced in the tv/o claims afterward made, as
noted above. To our mind these do not exceed the
scope of the original claims, but were made in the
exercise of a due caution on the applicant's part to
forestall anticipated evasion. It view of the dis¬
closure and explanation of invention made in the
original application, their allowance was proper. We
are of the opinion the entire course of procedure
was in effect a continuous one from the filing of
the first application until final allowance, and that
there was no abandonment by Dederick."
See also the decision in Exparte BeggB SO O.G.
1130.
The references cited in Office letter of August
19, 1903 have already been fully considered. In regard
to the new reference cited in the last Office action
applicant is unable to find any disclosure of the inven¬
tion claimed or any suggestion v/hich might lead up to said
invention. This trade catalogue merely sets forth mater¬
ials from which screening plates might have been construct-*
ed in acoordanoe with Kr. Edison's invention, if it had
occurred to any one to do so; but it did not occur to any
one to use plates of minimum thickness and form openings
therein which were wider than the thickness of said plates.
The universal practice prior to present invention
was to use, in making screens of fine mesh, material as
thick as the punohes were able to perforate, in order
that the screens might be durable , and the idea of using
soreens as thin as possible would have been considered by
manufacturers as decidedly disadvantageous, as it would
have been thought that such screens would wear out too
soon to he of any practical use. Applicant's disoovery
as to the means hy which the efficiency of screening
plates, especially those of very fine mesh, might he enor¬
mously increased, rendered it possible to use, commercially,
plates of minimum thickness and to disregard the short
life thereof, since, as before stated, the screening
capacity of these novel plates 1b equal to or greater
than the thicker and more enduring screens previously
known, because of such increased efficiency.
It is believed that invention must have been em¬
ployed by Mr. Edison in his conception of these facts,
since they did not occur to any one of the many users of
screens prior to Edison. This being so, the means by
which the invention is broughtbinto use, if novel, should
be patentable. The novelty of the said means is apparent
from the fact that none of the references show or describe
screens formed from plates of mini man thickness and hav¬
ing the other characteristics set forth in the claims.
Eor these reasons an allowance of the claims
is respectfully solicited.
Thomas A. Edison
By
his attorney
Orange, JsT. j.
May £'■] 1904.
b-i -
Dlv--a&. Room ....sifl
DEPARTMENT >.OF THE .INTERIOR,
United States Patent Office,
Washington, d. c„ June 8, 1904.
Thomas A. Bello on, p
Care Prank 1. Dyer,
Orange, B. J.
Please find belc
!! j, (IF^CE,
JUN 8 1<HW •
. Li
a communication from the E/AHIHER in charge of your application,
£167,929, filed August 1, 1903, for Screening Plates.
If. A ,
Case argued Kay 6, 1904.
On further oonsl derat ion. the reference 617,316, will be with¬
drawn, but the olalms of this application are rejected In view of
the unfavorable decision by all the trihuhals of the office In
'application 722,229, which oase is for the some subjeotmatter as
theipresent case. See Barratt vs. Duell, Commissioner of Patents,
87 0.0. , 1075, and Pay vs. Duell, Commissioner of patents, 90 0.0. ,
Division XXP.
UNITED STATES PATENT OPPXCE,
Thomas A. Edison :
SCREENING PLATES :
Room No . 315 .
Piled August 1, 1903 :
Serial No. 167,929 :
HHHflfRABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS,
Sir: —
Replying to Office action of June 8,
1904, applicant requests that the Examiner's action he made
final.
Very respectfully,
Thomas A. Edison
His Attorney.
Orange, N.J.
September ^
1904.
2—260.
M.B.O.
D1.V....J2JB. Room.JUB..
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
£ . United States Patent Office,
' Washington, d. c>, 8«pt. 86, 1904.
T. A. Edison, r;"‘
Care P. L. Dyer,
Orange, lr.J.
Please find below a communication from the EXAMINER in charge of your application
#167,929, f lied Aug. 1, 1905, for 8oreenlng Plate*,
. _ Commissioner of Patents. ' '
Case brought up by letter of Sept. 9, 1904.
Claim 1 in this case is substantially identical in so ope with
olalm 1 in application 722,229, while olalm 8 is substantially
identical in scope with claim. 8 in that applloatlon, and olalm 5
is substantially identloal in scope with olalm 5 of that application.:
, .Zn Tiew of the facta above stated and that this application is
for jthe, identical SubJeotmatter of application 788,889 (see state¬
ment, in the oath of this application) the oleins in which applica¬
tion have been rejected by^tha tribunals in the patent Of floe, it
must^c/held that thla oaee le res adjudicate.
''viy^Thc. olairaa arc finally rejected... ■
\ ... •• . , .'
Act * g Examiner ,
Division XXV
united states patent office.
Thomas A. Edison,
SCREENING PLATES,
Filed August 1, 1903, :
Serial No. 167,929.
HONORABLE. COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS |
SIB:-
In the above entitled application I
hereby appeal to the Examiners in chief from the deoiBion
of the Primary Examiner, isfoo on September 26th, 1904, re¬
jected the claims of thiB case on the references of record
and I assign the following reasons of appeal :-
(1) The Examiner erred in deciding that the refer¬
ences of record disclose the invention defined by said
claims.
(2) The Examiner erred in rejecting said claims.
(3) The Examiner erred in not allowing Baid claims.
I .hand you herewith check for $10. in payment
of the gove'rnment fee on this appeal. An oral hearing is
requested^
Very respectfully,
THOMAS A. EDISON,
His Attorney.
Orange, N.J,
September 7th, 1906.
it—2V0.
D-1V....25.. Room . J515 Paper No.
United States Patent Office,
T. A. Edison,
WASHINGTON, D. C., Sept . 19 f
Care E. I. Dyer,
Orange, N.J.
1905.
J'/ctwe jlihtl hr.lfjtt: u (t/irtiniiiij cntitni from • fJi-o EXAMINER In <'}urrf r of your of/plf-oatUrfn}
#167,929, filed Aug. 1,1903, for Screening Plates. ( ■
Enclosed find examiner .s statement.
H.l.fl.
Before tha
Hon. Board of Xxaalners-ln-Chlef
On Appeal.
Hr. Prank 1. Dyer for applloant.
Xxaminer*s Statement.
In view of the faot that this application la for tha identi¬
cal subjeotmatter (see statement In the oath) of application 783,829,
which applioation has been finally rejeoted by all the tribunals
In the Patent Office, and whioh applioation is now abandoned, and
in view of the further faot that claims 1, 8 and 5 of this ease dr*
substantially the same as olaims 1, S and 8, respeotlTeljr, of that
applioation, it has been held that the question of patentability
of 0l*?rI?lSi:h*Tl,!,g th® 80°P* °r 6ha in this oass is res
adju'iti^rfct^'
The oaee is reepeotfully submitted.
Aot*g Primary Bxaminer,
Division XXV.
Boom 315, 0. s. Patent Office,
September 19, 1905.
Applioation #167,989,
Thomas A. Bdison,
Screening Plates,
Piled August 1, 1908,
Cases in which oral hearings
are waived, and briefs submitted, will be
considered earlier than the date of hearing set, if opportunity offers.
The appeal from the decision of the Examiner in the case of .
. .for a patent for an improvement in
' - . . . .
■jL
, 190:3., Serial JTo.J.
Examiners ^in- Chief, 'H<y.
,JZs^4i will be heard by the
'Jfrr
If appellant, or his attorney, shall not appear at that time the hearing will
be regarded as waived, and the case will be decided upon the record.
Commissioner of Patents.
Very respectfully.
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE
THOMAS A. EDISON
SCHBENINO PLATES
PILED AUGUST 1, 1903
SERIAL NO. 167,929
ON APPEAL TO THE BOARD OP
EXAMINERS IN CHIEF
BRIBE FOR APPELLANT.
The Invention olaimed in the present application
was originally claimed in an application filed June 29,
1899, Serial No. 722,229. The claims in thin early appli¬
cation were finally rejeoted hy the Examiner and an appeal
wae then taken to this tribunal who affirmed the Examiner
hy an opinion rendered March 15, 1902. The oaee wae then
appealed to the Commissioner and the decision of the Exam¬
iners in Chief was affirmed May 26, 1903. After this de¬
cision had been rendered the applioant beoame convinced
that the claims in the oase were not limited to the real
invention, being broader than the invention, and in pref¬
erence to taking a further appeal on the broad olaimB, de¬
sired to proseoute an application having narrower olaimB .
The Patent Offioe rules, however, do not permit the entry
of an amendment affecting the merits of the oase after an
appeal has been taken, exoept by order df the Commissioner,
and the Commissioner does not grant suoh requests for any
reasons whioh oould have been urged in the present oase
so that it beoame neoessary to file a new application. The
present application was therefore filed during the pendenoy
of the original application and the latter application
(but not the invention thereof) was abandoned. The pres-
ent case oovers the same invention but is based upon a
more ample speoif ioation, and the present claims are more
limited in soope than those of the original case.
The present claims were rejected in the first
Office action upon Patent Ho. 671,316 of April 2, 1901 to
applicant, and in the next action upon references cited in
the earlier case, and upon a new reference, namely:- a
trade catalog of Eraser & Chalmers filed in the Patent
Offloe library on Ootober 16, 1893. Applicant presented an
argument requesting the withdrawal of Patent No. 671,316
as a reference, sinoe this application is a continuation
of the application filed June 29, 1899, and tho Examiner
thereupon withdrew such reference and rejected the claims
upon the unfavorable decisions by all the tribunals of the
Patent Offioe in the original application No. 722,729 and
held that the question of patentability of the claims in
this application is res adjudioata. This rejection having
been made final, an appeal has now been taken.
The Examiner states that claimB 1, 2 and 3 in
this case are substantially the same as claims 1, 6 and 3
respectively of application No. 722,729. While it is true
that the olaims of this case are based upon the identical
Bubjeot-matter of the prior application, an inspection of
the olaims will show that they are more limited than the
olaims in said application. Claim 1 of the original ap¬
plication reads as follows
"As a new artiole of manufacture, a very
thin metal plate having screening orifices
therein of greater width than the thiokness
of said plate, substantially as set forth."
The present olaim 1 readB as follows :-
"As a new artiole of manufacture, a soreen
having openings formed in a plate of minimum
thickness i less than the width of daid open¬
ings and sufficient only to offer proper sup-
' port to the material passed over tho same,
substantially as and for the purposes sat
forth".
The early claim specifies merely a very thin
metal "plate. The present olaim specifies that the plate
must be of inlnimiaa thiokness - the least possible thick¬
ness consistent with the offering of proper support to the
material which neoessarily passes over the same during the
screening operation. ClalmB 2 and 3 are similarly limit¬
ed and differ from claims 6 and 3 respectively of the orig¬
inal case in' the same way.
It is believed that the present claims cannot
properly be held to be res adjudicate, because claims hav¬
ing this limitation were not passed upon in the original
case by the Examiner or either of the appellate tribunals
and as an appeal disposes of only such matters as are be¬
fore the appellate tribunals, it is dear that there could
have been no adjudication upon the present claims.
It is therefore believed that the patentability
of this oase should be determined in the Bame way aB an
original application, except that its filing date should be
considered the same as that of the early application.
An examination of the references shows that
applicant's invention is novel, since all the references
whioh disclose screening plates having orifices of greater
width than the thiokness of the plate, are plates whioh
are of greater thiokness than is neoessary for properly
supporting the materials passed over the same. None of
the references disclose a careening plate of minimum thick¬
ness or one sufficient only to offer support to the ma¬
terial passed over the same. The question of patentabil¬
ity therefore resolves itself into the question whether
or not Invention was required to oonoelve and produoe
the article of manufacture olaimed. It is admitted by
applioant that materials were in existence at the date of
his invention from whioh the new soreening plate could
be manufactured - that is, he oould have purchased from
Eraser & ChalmerB and possibly from other manufacturers
metal sheets or plateB of Buffiolent thinness to be formed
into a screen embodying the invention. He does not olaim
to have invented extremely thin sheet metal for this pur¬
pose nor punches for forming the perforations in said
sheets. The Eraser & Chalmers catalog therefore appears
to have no bearing whatever upon the olaims in this case
sinoe it does not describe screens of minimum thickness
which is
and/lesB than the width of the screening orifioes. It is
true ’'of. almost every invention that materials are on the
market from which it may be oonstruoted. The important
faot is, however, that no such screens as those olaimed
were on the market, nor are Buch soreems Bhown or described
in any of the references oited by the Examiner.
The screen invented by applioant accomplishes
a new and useful result. It enables every fine materials
to be screened in as effioient a manner aB o parser mater¬
ials. In all prior soreening operations of fine mater¬
ials the screens were of very much less effloienoy than
those UBedfah ooareer materials and therefore it was nec¬
essary to pass the material over the screens again and
again, or over a muoh greater extent of screening surface
than with applicant's improved screen. No one prior to
Edison appears to have known that the efficiency of a
soreen depends upon the relation between the thickness of
the plate and the width of the openings. If it had been
known that effloienoy increases as the ratio between the
width of the opening, and the thickness of the Bercen in¬
creases, then it might be maintained that invention was
not required to produoe the eoreen of the claims under
consideration, but this 1b far from being the pase. Manu¬
facturers of screens for screening fine materials invar¬
iably used metal which was thicker than the width of the
orifioes; or about as thiok aB the punches were capable
of perforating. The reason for the selection of such metal
was to increase the durability of the soreen. If the use
of metal of minimum thickness had occurred to the manu¬
facturer, it is quite likely that the idea would have been
rejeoted at onoe because he would have thought that the
life of a screen of this sor.t./ivould be so short as to
make it praotioally worthless. The result was therefore
that the Boreens actually produoed, although durable, were
very inefficient; This faof was recognized by hhe manu¬
facturers, but was accepted as inevitable, as an objection
Whioh neoesearily aocompanies the use of fine screens but
for which there was no remedy . , Now although the screen
disclosed in the present application is of shorter life
than prior screens as compared with the amount of material
whioh passes over it, it is of longer life as regards the
quantity of material that passes through it in account of
its far greater effioienoy. This fact is also a novel con¬
ception whioh manufacturers had failed to grasp at the
date of applicant's invention. In oge oase a user of fine
screening plates, noting the increased efficiency of the
plates used by Mr. Bdison at his separating plant at Bdison
N. J. , endeavored to have them duplicated by a manufactur¬
er; but the manufacturer actually filled the order with
thiok plates of the ysual style showing conclusively that
he did not gain a conception of the invention even though
8.
an expert in the manufacture of screening plates and even
though the attempt was made to explain/to him. These
faotB are brought out by affidavit b in the appeal record of
the old ease before the Commissioner, but they do not ap¬
pear to have received sufficient consideration, since they
are almost conclusive evidenoe that invention is involved
in the conception and redaction to practioe of the improved
soreen,.
The seeming obviousness of the invention is due
entirely to its simplioity. It is an invention wherein the
inventive aot resides entirely in the conception, since
the reduction to practioe can be oarried out by a person of
ordinary skill. The manufacturer referred to as receiving
an order for, the improved screen could have readily filled ’
it if he had obtained a conception of the invention, but
this he had evidently not received, therefore he failed
to embody the invention in the screens with which he filled
the order. Similarly, any person having a oonoeption of
the invention oould have sent an order to Eraser & Chalmers
and after convincing them that it would not be throwing
money away to construct a screen of this oharaoter he would
undoubtedly have been able to procure one.
When an invention of this simple oharaoter is em¬
bodied in a patent application a conception of the inven¬
tion is had by the Examiner }.ong before he reaches the
claims annexed to the specification, and it is natural
that the invention should appear to him obvious; yet man¬
ufacturers and users of fine soreens had accepted the in¬
efficiency of fine screens as a disadvantage which could
not be remedied. Hence It is clear that the production of
the improved soreen was not obviouB , and the claims are
6.
therefore believed to be patentable,
Orange, N
December
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS A. EDISON
By
Jersey
1906.
hiB Attorney.
7.
EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF
S— SOS.
T,“ wJIhtaJS™D. 0£.S,“,“' Department of the Interior,
aamblinll-05
Ho aid, Aitflunt 20, 1B70, Ho. 207,170;
Oaatlor, . Uarflh 21, 1002, Ho. 8Gb, 380;
liftton, April 8V, 1020, Ho. 340,042;
Borthfllot, July 26, 1002, Ho. 470,017;
Croon, 1.3a;/ 2b,. 1007, Ho; 503,032;
'Y/orkuhop Roccipto for ’(amifaoturon, .lie.", Lock.
73 :c adverse dcciiiion of ti.c
followu:
"In view of the fact that; thin application in for the i-
danUcul BubJo.cti.iat 1;or (ituo o tat onion t in the oath) of application
782,829, which application hfui boon finally rejected by all the
tribunals in the Patent Offico, and which application in now aban-
cloned, and in viev/ of the further fact that claims 1, 8 and 3 of
thin cane are Buh«» antially the name an claim » 1, b and 3, reap act
!G,,U'JS
ivoly, of that application, it has been hold that tho question oi'
patentability ol’ olaiUf! having tho uoopo of tho claims in this case
is ro ii tid.1udlco.ttt. "
Claims 1,2 ami ii of thin cano appoarv above.
Claims 1, !> and 5 of a former application rejected l.y
thin board and liy tho Commissioner road a a follows:
"1. As a new article of manufacture, a very thin metal
pinto having screening orifices; therein of grantor width than tho
thickness of said pfeiiAc, subs tan tiully as sat forth.
"b. As a now article of ismufucturo', a very thin :.io !.ul
plate ha via.''; snrcuniiv: slots therein of grantor width than the
thielrncss of said pinto, substantially as set forth."
"o. As a now article of maiufacture, n metal plate having
a hardened screening surface but with u jaallott.lile central portion,
said pl.atG buitig of extromo thinness and having oitlficos formed
therein of greater width than the thickness of sale plate, substan¬
tially as set forth."
Prior 1.o the rejection on the above ground the Principal
?h:ai.iinor in his letter of September h, 190:1, a socond time rc.iticl.Gd
those appealed claims on tho references and reasons oi’ record .
S'hosa references and reasons are the some as those on which claims ■
1, S and 3 of tho former apnjli Ssation wore reject eel. i’ho Principal
SJsaainor also added the trade catalogue of Pr attar and Chalmers, for
1(382, showing snreon plates having n thickness of .01 of an inch,
or; from TTo. 30 wire gauge to -J- of an inch to be punched by t.ho
manufacturer with slots proportioned to tho Ihioknesa of t.'nc metal
of tho "screen plates. Also screen plates are ah own having much
greator width than tho thickness of motal, unci t.ho ground taken by
the thiamin or that the change j|f footed by the applicant wus one of
dogroo only in proportions of the structure and involved no patent-
able novelty. -
Sp.;^prA?&^^ee^og^j^-f^^e^^jiid4^ta? another
TOUTED STATES PATENT OPPICE.
THOMAS A. EDISON,
Screening Platen,
Piled August 1, 1903,
Serial No. 167,929.
Orange, Hew Jersey,
November 14, 1906.
APPEAL
SIR: ■
I hereby appeal to the Honorable Commissioner
of Patents in person from the decision of the Examiners- in-
Chief, who , on December 7th, 1905, affirmed -the decision
of the Primary Examiner finally rejecting the claims thereof,
and I assign the following reasons of appeal:
(1) The Examiners- in-Chief erred in holding the
claims res ad.ludioata .
(2) The Examiners- in- Chief erred in deciding that
the invention defined by the claims is anticipated by the
references of record.
(3) The Examiners- in-Chief erred in deciding that
the terms of the claims are met by the references of record.
-1-
(4 The Examiners-in-Chlef erred in deciding that
the invention defined by the claims is lacking in patentable
novelty.
(5) The Examine™- in-Chief erred in deciding that
the invention defined by the claims is the result only of
ordinary meohanical skill; and
| (0) The Examiners- in-Chief erred in not reversing
the decision of the Primary Examiner.
An oral hearing is requested. The appeal fee of
820. is furnished herewith.
Very respect iUlly,
THOMAS A. EDISON,
by
|?o the
HONORABLE COHMISS IOHER OP PATENTS,
Washington, D.C.
UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, D. C.
In the matter of the
Application of
ThomaB A. Edison,
Screening Plates :
Piled August 1, 1903
Serial No. 167,929.
)
)
)
)
On Appeal to the Commii
Sir:
You are hereby Informed that a hearing on the above
appeal from the decision of the Examiners -in-Chief , has been fixed
for Wednesday, December 5, 1906, at 10 A. M.
By di- eotion of the Commissioner:
Very respectfully,
^ —
Thomas A. Edison,
o/o Prank L. Dyer,
Edison Laboratory,
Orange, New Jersey.
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OEEICE.
Thomas A. Edison )
SCREENING PLATES )
: ON APPEAL TO THE
Piled August 1st, 1903 )
: COMMISSIONER IN PERSON.
Serial No. 167,929 )
BRIBE POR APPELLANT.
STATEMENT OP THE CASE.
The invention of the present case waB originally
set forth in an application filed June 29, 1899, serial
No. 722, 229. The claims of this early application were
Broader than those of the present oase, and the specifica¬
tion was in some respects not so full as in the present
oase, hut the invention which the applicant has sought to
cover is undoubtedly the same in the two oases, the
present oaBe Being a continuation of the early oase.
The olaims of the original oase were finally re¬
jected By the Examiner and appealed successively to the
Board of Examiners in Chief and to the Commissioner, Both
of whioh tribunals rendered opinions, dated respectively
MaBoh 16th, 1902 and May 26th, 1903, sustaining the Examin¬
er and refusing the grant of a patent.
After the rendering of the decision of the Com¬
missioner the applioant had the right 'of an appeal to the
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. Applicant
felt however, that the invention was not properly set forth
in the specification, that is, the specification was some-
what indefinite and could he amplified bo as to more clear¬
ly deBcrihe the invention, and he also believed that the
olaims were somewhat broader than the invention and should
therefore be canceled and replaoed by claims of proper
scope. The Patent Offioe rules do not allow the intro¬
duction of such matter as applicant wished to introduoej
neither do they permit the substitution of alaims of dif¬
ferent scope from those upon whioh the appeal was taken,
after a decision by the Commissioner, exoept in rare and
unusual oases. The present application was therefore
filed during the pendenoy of the original application, and
the latter application ( but not the invention thereof )
was abandoned. This faot makes the present case a con¬
tinuation of the original case for all matter therein dis¬
closed (International Tooth Crown Company vs. Richmond 39
O.G. 1550} Godfrey vs. Eames, 1 Wall. 317} Smith vs.
Goodyear Company, 93 U.3. 600} Graham vs. Geneva lake
Company, 11 Red. 138} Dederiok vs. Pox, 63 O.G. 1963}
ex parte Beggs, 50 O.G. 1130 )
The Primary Examiner admitted that the present
application is based upon the same invention as the origin¬
al case and rejected the olaims upon the references cited
In the original oase, and one additional reference, and
later took the position that the consideration of the
olaims in the present case Is res ad.1 udicata in view of
the prosecution of the early oase. The Examiners in
Chief took the same view of the matter, and also fodnd
that the olaims do not involve invention over the refer¬
ences.
Upon the present appeal applicant respectfully
submits, first, that consideration of the present claims
is not res ad.1 udicata. and second, that the olaims are
patentable and should be allowed.
2.
CONSIDERATION OF THIS PRESENT OLAIMS IS HOT RES
ADJUDIfiATA .
The Examiner states that claims 1, 2 and 3 in
this case are substantially the same as olaims 1, 5 and 3
respectively of application Ho. 722, 729. TOiile it is true
that the olaims of this ease are based upon the identical
subjeot-matter of the prior application, an inspection of
the olaims will show that they are *jdt more limited than tin
claims in said application . Claim 1 of the original ap¬
plication reads as follows
"As a new article of manuf aoture, a very
thin metal plate having screening orifices
therein of greater width than the thickness
of said plate, substantially as set forth."
The present olaim 1 reads as follows
"As a new article of manufacture, a soreen
having openings formed in a plate of minimum
thickness, less than the width of said open¬
ings and sufficient only to offer proper sup¬
port to the material passed over the same,
substantially as and flor the purposes sat
forth".
The early olaim speoifies merely a very thin
metal plate. The present olaim speoifies that the plate
must be of minimum thickness - the leaBt possible thick¬
ness consistent with the offering of proper support to the
material whioh necessarily passes over the same during the
screening operation. Olaims 2 and 3 are similarly limit¬
ed and differ from claims 5 and 3 respectively of the orig¬
inal case in the same way.
It is believed that the present olaims cannot
properly be held to be res acLIudloata. because claims hav¬
ing this limitation were not passed upon in the original
case by the Examiner or either of the appellate tribunals
and as an appeal disposes of only Buoh matters as are be-
3.
fore the appellate tribunals, it is olear that there oould
have been no adjudication upon the present claims.
It 1b therefore believed that the patentability
of this oase should be determined in the same way aB an
original application, exoept that its filing date should be
considered the same as that of the early application.
However, even if the Commissioner believes that
consideration of the present claims is properly a question
which is res adjudioata. it is within his power to go into
the merits of the case, in order that the whole matter may
be taken before the Court of Appeals. In Tay vs. Duell,
Commissioner of Patents, 90 O.G. 1167, 1900 C.D. 232, the
praotioe whioh had been followed by the applicant was pre¬
cisely the same as in the present oase except that the ap¬
plication was renewed "without substantial change", whereas
in the present case the specification has been amplified
and the claims redrawn in more limited terms. However, in
the oase referred to, although the Commissioner held that
the subordinate tribunals were right in declaring the
question res adjudioata. he went into the question of
patentability de novo. in order that upon appeal to the
Court of Appeals, the, full oase might be heard.
THE CLAIMS SHOULD BE ALLOWED.
The present olaims read as follows:
"1. As a new artiols of manufacture, a soreen
having openings formed in a plate of minimum thickness,
less than the width of said openings and sufficient
only to offer proper support to the material passed
over the same, substantially as and for the purposes set
forth.
2. As a new artiole of manufacture, a soreen
having slots formed in a plate of minimum thickness,
less than the width of said slots. and sufficient only
to offer proper support to the material passed over
the same, substantially as and for the purposes set
forth.
4.
3, Ah a new article of manufacture, a screen hav¬
ing openings domed in a plate of minimum thickness,
leso in width than said openings, sufficient only to
offer proper support to the material passed over the
same, and having a oasc-hardened screening surfaoe and
a malleable central portion, substantially as and for
the purposes set forth. "
An examination of the references shows that
applicant's invention is novel, Binoe all the references
which disclose screening plates having orifices of greater
width than the thickness of the plate, are plateB whioh
are of greater thickness than 1b necessary for properly
supporting the materials passed over the same. None of
the references disclose a screening plate of minimum thick¬
ness or one sufficient only to offer support to the ma¬
terial passed over the same. The question of patentability
therefore resolves itself into the question whether or
not thvontlon was required to conceive and produoe the
artiole of manufacture claimed. It is admitted by ap¬
plicant that materials wore in existence at the date of
his invention from whioh the new screening plate oould
be manufactured - that is, he oould have purchased from
Fraser & Chalmers and possibly from other manufacturers
metal sheets or plates of sufficient thinness to be formed
into a screen embodying the invention. He does not claim
to have Invented extremely thin sheet metal for this pur¬
pose nor punohes for forming the perforations in Bald
sheets. The Fraser & Chalmers catalog therefore appears
to have no bearing whatever upon the claims in this oaso
Binoe it does not describe screens of minimum thiokness and
whioh 1b less than the width of the screening orifices. It
is true of almost every invention that materials are on the
market from whioh it may bo constructed. The important
faot is, however, that no ouch Boreena as those olaimed
wore on the market, nor are suoh screens shown or described
in any of the references oited by the Examiner.
8.
The screen Invented hy applicant accomplishes
a new and useful result. In enahleB very fine materials
to he screened in as efficient a manner as coarser mater¬
ials . In all prior screening operations of fine mater¬
ials the Bcreens were of very much less effioienoy than
those used for coarser materials and therefore it was nec¬
essary to pass the material over the screens again and
again, or over a much greater extent of screening surface
than with applicant 'is improved screen. Ho one prior to
Edison appears to have known that the efficiency of a
screen depends upon the relation between the thioknees of
the plate and the width of the openings. If it had been
known that effioienoy increases as the ratio between the
width of the opening and the thickness of the screen in¬
creases, then it might be maintained that invention was
not required to produce the screen of the olaims under
consideration, but this is far from being the case. Manu¬
facturers of screens for screening fine materials invar¬
iably used metal which was thioker than the width of the
orifioes; or about as thiok as the punches were capable
of perforating. The reason for the selection of suoh metal
was to increase the durability of the soraen. If the use
of metal of minimum thickness had oocurred to the manu¬
facturer, it is quite likely that the idea would have been
rejected at onoe because he would have thought that the
life of a soreen of this sort would be so short as to
make it praotically worthless. The result was therefore
that the soreens aotually produced, although durable, were
very inefficient. This fact was reoognized by the manu¬
facturers, but was aooepted as inevitable. as an objection
whioh neoessarily accompanies the use of fine Bcreens but
for which there was no remedy.
6.
I2.no Examiners in Chief stats that "prior to wiiat -
evor thiB applicant has dons, soraens having slots of groat-
or width than the thickness of the metal ware wall known."
'"ha only prior screens in which the slots ware of greater
'width than the thickness of metal ware screens of large
Mooli, whose apart nr ay ware of very groat width aa ooapared
with those disclosed "by applicant, and thickness of the
metal is vary much greater than is necessary to carry the
load, rfaa prior art does not show that any fine screens,
such screens as could he used for the sumo purposes as
applicant's, were made of metal thinner than the width of
the apertures, and of minimum thickness sufficient only to
support the load of material.
The Examiners in Chief also stated that it was well
known that "the slots must be out with relation to the thiol
nesc of the metal of the screens". They fail to state what
this known relation was, but the prosecution of the old case
wakes it clear that the principle upon which screen makers
wore cutting the slots in metallic sheets was very differ¬
ent from the principle of the present invention. From the
affidavit of Cloyd H. Chapman, filed at the hearing before
the Commissioner, it 1b shown that "in the praotiooi manu¬
facture of fine screening plates it is not yet known by
manufacturers other than Mr. Edison, that the ratio between
the thickness of the plates au<l the width of the slot has
anything to do with the efficiency of the screen. It is
the aim, in faot, of all manufacturers of fine screening
plates to use relatively thick metal, apparently in order
to Becure the greatest durability. The thickness of metal
employed by other manufacturers depends largely upon the
capaoity of the punches, it being obvious that a very fins,
relatively sharp punoh must be used on thinner metal t-ban
ooarse punohap , and also that slot punohes oan be used on
7.
coarser metal than round hole punches.
It is therefore perfectly clear that the principle
adopted by prior screen makers was to use metal as thick
as the punohea were capable of perforating, while appli¬
cant ua03 sheets much thinner than this - as thin as
possible, the thickness of which is limited only by its
ability to support the load.
The Examiners in Chief also state that " when
this applicant found that the old style of screen * * *
which ho may have been using, was clogged by the particular
material which ho was screening, there ware obvious re¬
medies for the fault. one was to make the slots wider."
It is raopeotfully submitted that this was no solution
whatever of the trouble because suoii change would muke a
different screen. W/ien a manuf acturer wishes to use a 200
mesh screen and finds it clogged it is absurd to say that a
100 mesh screen would solve the diffioulty, because it
would not give him the kind of an article he wanted. It
would bo just as absurd as fco offer a man red paint when
he wants to paint his house white.
The Examiners in Chief then go on to statu that
thore is another obvious remedy - that it would be obvious
that the dogging was caused by friction between the ma¬
terial and the walls of the slot, and the remedy would be
obvious, namely, to diminish the area of the walls of the
slot, by making the metal of the Bame thinner. This is
precisely what we olaim was not obvious. The makers of
soreens had come to the conclusion that screens of fine
mesh were necessarily inefficient and that there was no
remedy for the dogging o.f such soreens. It must be
evident that if the manufacturers of screens had known
the advantages of the present invention, they would have
constructed soreens of the character set forth herein. The
fact that they did not is praotieally conclusive that the
invention was not obvious, and it is quite clear that no
such soreen has ever before been produced,; because the
catalogues of the prominent screen makers show that in the
case of screens of fine mesh the thickness of the metal is
in every case greater than the width of the opening, and
that plates of minimum thickness with openings of greater
width than the thiokness thereof have not been made. That
the invention v;as not obvious is apparent from the follow¬
ing facts sworn to by Mr. Edison in the original applica¬
tion:
"About the time that the above application was filed,
I used a large number of fine screens involving the in¬
vention here claimed, at my ore milling plant at Edison,
H.J. Very superior results were secured with these
screens; in fact the efficiency was very much higher
than with any soreens then known. The Hew Jersey Zinc.
Co., had a plant looated at Eranklin, H.J,,a few miles
from Edison, and were using ordinary fine screens punch¬
ed in relatively thiok plates but with very poor re¬
sults. Officers of the Hew Jersey Zinc Co. frequently
complained to me of the poor efficiency of their screens
and were always surprised to hear of the high offio-
ienoies which I was seouring. I finally loaned the Hew
Jersey Zinc Co., a set of my screens, and told them to have
the soreens reproduced. Either on the instructions of
the Zinc Co., or on the manufacturers 'judgement, the re¬
produced soreenB made for the oompany were constructed
of considerably thioker metal than the set which X loaner
the oompany, so that when installed they were as ineffi¬
cient as those previously used, neither the Zino Co.,
nor the manufacturer of their soreens oould explain the
loss in effioienoy, and finally attributed the loss to
differences in material, and in conditions of operation.
It was not until X examined the screens thus installed
by the Zino Co., that X saw what the trouble was".
The seeming obviousness of the Invention is due en¬
tirely to its simplicity. It is an invention wherein the
inventive aot resides entirely in ttie conception, Binoe
the reduction to praotioe can be carried out by a person of
ordinary skill.
The userand manufacturer referred to oould of
course have readily constructed the improved screens if
they had obtained a conception of the invention, but as
9.
they had not they failed to embody the invention in the
screens v/hioh v/ore actually constructed.
Similarly, any person having a conception of the
invention could hewe sent an order to Fraser & Chalmers,
and after convincing them that he was in earnest in desir¬
ing to obtain a soroen of minimum thioknesa thoy would un¬
doubtedly have been able to oonstruot one for him, but it
is quite evident from the references oited that no one
ever did obtain this conception prior to EdlBon, and the
conclusion is therefore irrestible that it was not an
obvious one.
It is therefore rospeotfully submitted that the
claims in this application should bo allowed.
THOMAS A. XDISOff
By _ -
His Attorney
Orango, New Jersey
December 1906.
w.l.k.
Deck’s, 1900.
j,W
, A " /'
United States Patent Offioe.
Ex parte Thomas A. Edison.
Screening Plates.
Appeal from Examlners-in-Chief .
Application filed August 1, 1903, Ho. 167,929.
Mr. Prank L. Byer for applloant.
This io an appeal from the decision of the examiners- in-
Ohief affirming the rejection hy the primary examiner of the follow¬
ing claims:
"1. As a new article of manufacture, a Boreen having open¬
ings formed in a plate of minimum thickness, less than the width
of said openings and sufficient only to offer proper support to
tho material passed over the same, substantially as and for the
purposes set forth.
"2. As a new artiole of manufacture, a soreen having slots
formed in a plate of minimum thickness, less than the width of
said Blots, and sufficient only to offer proper support to the
material passed over the same, substantially us and for the
purposes Bet forth.
"3. As a new article of manufacture, a screen having open¬
ings formed in a plate of minimum thickness, lose in width than
said openings, sufficient only to offer proper support to the
material passed over the same, and having a caso-hardoned screen¬
ing surface and a malleable oontral portion, substantially as and
for tho purposes set forth."
The references are -
Heald, August 20, 1876, Mo. 207,178;
Oastler , March ’21, 1882, Mo. 258,325;
Bates, April 27, 1886, Ho. 340,842;
Bertholet , July 26, 1892, No. 479,617;
Cross, Kay 25, 1897, Ho. 583,032;
"Workshop Receipts for Manufactures, eto.," Lock;
"Trade Catalogue" of Eraser & ChalmerB for 1892, f iled tc f?
16. 1893. neces R. 9. oo o* ■
Ootobor 16, 1893, pages 5, 9, 22 and •
The subject-matter of this application is the same as that
presented hy the applicant in an earlier application, No. 722,229,
filed June 29, 1399. The reoord of this earlier application shows
that the rejection hy the primary examiner of the claims presented
therein waB affirmed on appeal hy the examiners-in-chief and hy the
Commissioner. No appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals of the
District of Columbia, and after the filing of the present, application
the earlier case became abandoned.
The primary examiner and the examiner e-in-ohief concurred
in finding that the appealed claims are the same in scope as some of
the rejected olaims of the earlier application and that, the question
of patentability with respeot to these claims is res adjudioata.
They, however, considered the merits of the claims in view of the
prior art and held that they were not patentable over the references.
In my opinion their conclusions as to each ground of rejection are
correct .
Claims 1, 2 and 3 which are now presented, differ from
olaims 1, 5 and 3, respectively, of the oarlior application in phrase¬
ology rather than in meaning. The gist of the supposed invention is
alleged to consist in making a case hardened screen of the minimum
thickness required to support the material passing over it, with per¬
forations or slots having a width greater than the thickness of the
screen.
In the present claims the ratio of the width of openings
to the thickness of the screen is referred to as "openings formed in
a plate of minimum thickness, less than the width of said openings."
In the earlier case it was stated as "a very thin metal plate having
screening orifices therein of greater width than the thickness of the
3
plate." The applicant contends that the present claims by being
limited to a Boreen having "a minimum thicknes - the least possible
thickness consistent with the offering of a proper support to the
“Serial," differ in soope from the claims of the earlier application
and that the rejection as res adjudioata is improper. This conten¬
tion is not well founded. In the earlier case the same arguments
were advunced in distinguishing the claims from the prior art aB those
whioh are now urged as distinguishing the present from the former
claims. In my decision in that caBe it is stated that -
"The applicant contends that in hlB invention tho width of
the openings in the plate has a ratio to the thickness of the
plate, but that the plate must be as thin as possible, its
thickness being limited only by its capacity to support the
material being screened. These alleged differences are ones
of degree merely, and do not amount to invention."
The contentions advanced and matters considered in the earlier cnso
were the same as those now advanced for consideration in this case
and the final determination of the earlier case is clearly res ad-
judloata as to this one.
Considering the merits of the claim, however, the question
presented is whether a oase hardened screen of minimum thiokness,
having slots wider than the thiokness ‘of tho screen is patentable over
the references.
Applicant admits that oase hardened screen plates are old.
The patents of record show screens made of sheet metal in whioh the
width of the openings is greater than the thickness of the plate.
The trade catalogue of Fraser S : Chalmers shows screen plates having
^thicknesses from one-hundredth of an lnoh to one-half of an inch,
which are provided with slots proportioned to the thickness of the
metal. In view of this state of the art, it does not appear that
applicant did anything more than to apply to a thin screen a con-
4
struct ion which was old for the same purpose in a thick screen, this
change wsh one of degree which did not involve invention.
The decision of the examiners-in-chief 1b affirmed.
~ - * .
Commiesionor*
February 28, 1907.
February 28, 1907.
E.K.O.
UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, D. C.
In the matter of the )
Application of )
Thomas A. Edison, ) On Appeal to the Commissioner.
Screening Plates; )
Filed August 1, 1903, )
Serial No. 167,929. )
Sir:
You are hereby informed that the decision of the F,xam-
iners-in-Chief has been affirmed by the Commissioner. Please
find enclosed herewith a copy of the deoision.
By direction of the Commissioner:
■ Very respectfully,
ThomaB A. Edison,
o/o Frank E. Dyer,
Edison laboratory,
Orange , N . J.
IN HIE UNI TED STATES PATENT OFFICE.
I Serial Mo. 187,929
Filed. August 1, 1903
Improvements in Screening Plates.
J TO THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS ,
SIS : —
You are hereby
I notified of my appeal to the Court of AppealB of the
District of Columbia from your decision rendered on or about
the 28th day of February, 1907, rejecting my abovo en¬
titled application and refusing me a patent for the inven-
I tion set forth therein. The following are assigned as
-easons of appeal:
1. The Commissioner ef Patents erred in holding
j that the appealed claims 1, 2 and 3 are the same in scope
i claims 1, 5 and 3 respectively of applicant's earlier
| application, serial No. 722, 229, filed June 29th, 1899.
2. The Commissioner of Patents erred in holding
I that the question of patentability of the claims of the
present case is res adjudioata.
3. The Commissioner of Patents erred in holding
I that the subject matter of the olaima bf the present appli¬
cation is anticipated by the references oit.ed during the
1.
prosecution
the application.
4. The Corani si) loner of Patents orred in holding
I that the suh.loct matter of the elates of the present appli¬
cation does not involve invention over the disclosures
I of the references cited in the said application.
THOMAS A. EDISON
! Orange, Hew Jersey
March 20, 1007.
COURT OR APPEARS
DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA
PATENT APPEAL
NO. _
In re: application of
THOMAS A. EDISON
Serial No. 167,929
Piled Aug . 1 , 1903
Improvements in Screening
Plates.
- PETITION POR APPEAL
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA -
In re: Application of
Thomas A. Edison
Serial No. 107,929
Piled August 1, 1903
Improvements in Screening
Plates.
>
|
j
j
j
TO THE COURT OP APPEAXS OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA;
Your petitioner, Thomas A. Edison, of
Llewellyn Park, Orange, in the County of Essex and State
of New Jersey, respeotfully represents:
That he is the original and first inventor of
certain new and useful improvements in screening plate*;
That on the 29th day of June, 1899, in the
manner prescribed by law, he presented his application to
the Patent Office, praying that a patent be issued to him
for the said invention;
That such proceedings were had in said Offioe
upon said application: that on the 26th day of May, 1903
it was rejected by the Commissioner of Patents and a patent
for saidv invention v/as refused him;
That thereupon and while the said application
was still pending before the Patent Offioe, to wit, on
the first day of August, 1903, in the manner prescribed by
law, your petitioner presented a second application to the
Patent Offioe upon the same invention as the original appli¬
cation but with an amplified specification and more limited
olaims, and prayed that a patent be issued to him for the
Baid invention;
That suoh proceedings were had in said Office
upon said second application, that on the 28th day of
February, 1007 At was rejected by the Commissioner of
Patents and a patent for said invention was refused him;
That on the 26th day of March, 1907, your
petitioner, pursuant to sections 4912 and 4913, Rev.Stat.,
United States, gave notice to the Commissioner of Patents oi
his appeal to this honorable oourt from his refusal to
issue a patent to him for said invention upon Baid applica¬
tion as aforesaid, and filed with him in writing tke
following reasons of appeal:
1. The Commissioner of Patents erred in holding
that the appealed claims 1, 2 and 3 are the same in scope
as claims 1, 5 and 3 respectively of applicant's earlier
I application, serial Ho. 722,229, filed June 29th, 1899.
2. The Commissioner of Patents erred in holding
that the question of patentability of the claims of the
present co.se is res adjudicata.
i 3, The Commissioner of Patents erred in holding
that the subject matter of the claims of the present applic¬
ation is anticipated by the references cited during the
prosecution of the application.
4. The Commissi oner of Patents erred in holding
that the subject matter of the olaims of the present appli¬
cation floes not involve invention over the disclosures of
the references cited in the said application.
That the Commissioner of patents lias furnish¬
ed him a certified transoript of the record and proceedings
relating to said application for patent, which transcript
is filed herewith and is to be deemed and taken as a part
2.
hereof.
Wherefore your petitioner prays that hie eaid ap¬
peal may he heard upon and for the reasons assigned there¬
for to the Commissioner as aforesaid, and that said appeal
may be determined and the decision of the Commissioner he
revised and reversed, that justice may he done in the pre¬
mises.
Thomas A. Edison
Orange, Hew Jersey
.■.April 16th, 1907.
COPY
PAWI APPEAL DOCKET
CASE 1T0 433.
COURT OE APPEALS OE THE DISTRICT OE COLUMBIA.
April Term, 1907
In the matter of the application
cf "
Thomas' A. Edison
The Clerk will enter my appearance as Counsel for the Appellant.
11 (Name-) Frank L. Dyer
( P.O. Address) Orange, H.J.
Note: Must he signed by a member of the Bar of the Court of
Appeals of the District of Columbia. Individual and not firm
names must be signed.
.9— 082.
Department of tee Interior,
Washington, 1). ~ . May..l., . , 190. .3
IN RE APPEAL OF
.HiomaB-A.-SdiS-Qn.
Patent Appeals
Ho . . 433. . .
Sir :
Ton are hereby notified, in accordance with the provisions of section 4-9 IS,
R. S. U. S., and section 9 of the act to establish a Coart of Appeals for the District
of Columbia, that the Court of Appeals will sit at the court room in the City
Hall building, Washington, D. C., on the second Tuesday of. . Jfay .
( . .T.ue.ad ay. r . .Hay. . 1.4 r . . . , 190..%), to hear the appeal in the matter
of . the. applicM.ion..of .TMmaa.AA..Mi8on . .
Invention: . -Soraenlng..;i?.lataa . .
Docket Humber ( Patent Appeals). . 43.3... . Serial Humber . I.?.?.*?.?.?.
. > . Commissioner of Patents.
To . .Thomas.. A....]5.dlB_oii » . : .
o/o Frank L. Byer,
Edison Laboratory,
Orange, N. J.
IN THE COURT OF APPEARS OF THE
DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA.
In re: Application of) Patent Appeal
Thomas A. Edison j Ho. 433
STIPULATION
It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and
between Prank L. Dyer, Attorney for the appellant herein,
and Fairfax Byard, Attorney for the Commissioner of
Patents, that the hearing of this appeal be postponed,
until 10 O'clock A.M., Tuesday, June 4, 1907, or as
soon thereafter as counsel can be heard.
Washington, I). C., . .0o.t.aber...29., . 190 _
IN RE APPEAL OF
. Thomas-~A, .Edison- . )
I Patent Appeals
. . . : . j No . 433 . .
Sir :
You are hereby notified, in accordance with the provisions of section If 9 13,
R. S. U. S., and section 9 of the act to establish a Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia, that the Court of Appeals will sit at the court room in the City
Hall building, Washington, D. C., on the second Tuesday o/— -November .
(• . Tuesday-, -November . , 190.!}.), to hear the appeal in the matter
of _ the appllnaf. ton nf* Thmnan At TMiann
Invention:.. . Soreend-ng-KLates-
Commissioner of Patents.
To . Thomas. A...Ed.laon., .
o/o IVank L . Iyer,
Kdis on Laboratory,
Orange, N. J.
2-082.
Department of the Interior,
Washington, D. C.
IN RE APPEAL OF
•Th-om'«B-A--."-®cTlS6n''
. ^ . . . I No...
Patent Appeals
433
Sir :
You are hereby notified, in accordance ivith the provisions of section 4918,
JR. S. V. S., and section 9 of the act to establish a Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia, that the Court of Appeals will sit at the court room in the City
Hall building, Washington, D. C., on the second Tuesday o/.—.Janiary- .
( . -T-ueadfty-,-— Ja-nufiry-1-5-,— 1-908--; 1 90....), to hear the appeal in the matter
°f . -the- Tcirp-l"rr-st-±orr;-of"ThOTiia8— A-;— Bd-i-Bon . .
Invention . ■Set(ie'fiin‘g""Prat;eB . . . .
Docket Number ( Patent Appeals). . .4.5.5 . Serial Number .
To . Thoma-.A.—Ediaon- .
. 0/o Prank Barer.
Edison Laboratory,
Orange , N. J.
^ 188WblmB-01
COPY
In the Court of 'Appeals of the District of Columbia
In the Matter of the Application )
of ) Patent Appeal Ho. 433.
Thomas A. Edison )
It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between Prank L.
Dyer , attorney for the appellant herein, and Fairfax Bayard,
attorney for the Commissioner of Patents, that certified copies of
"pages 13 and 34 from Catalogue Ho. 7 of February 1902, filed as
Exhibit A, May 5,1903, in the Matter of abandoned application of
Thomas A. Edison, filed June 29,1899, Serial Ho. 722229, for
Improvement in Fine Screening Plates and Process o'f Making same,"
together with a certified copy"from the bound volumes of the
library of Patent Office of an extract from pages 274 and 280 of
"Workshop Receipts ', Third Series .London 1884"; and a certified
copy"from the bound volumes of the library of the Patent Office of
pages 5 and 9 of 'Fraser and Chalmers Catalogue 1 , Chica&o and
London, 1892, also tracing of plats 288 and 289 in said book",
form a part of the transcript of the record from the Patent Office
in said cause and be printed by the Clerk as such.
Frank L. Dyer
Attorney for Appellant
\f~ {hauLf
Attorney for Commissioner of
Patents.
PERFORATED METALS
CATALOGUE No. 7
ALLIS-CHALMERS CO. Pages 13 and 34.
NEEDLE -SLOT SCREENS
The following table of Needle-Slot Screens for use in
Stamp Batteries or other similar work covers every size likely
to he required; and, being standard, orders can be placed by
giving numb er only.
Battery Screens are a specialty with us, our shops beifig
equipped with a very complete set of dies and punches covering
all sizes of perforations from 60 mesh up to any required width,
with spacing to correspond. We make these screens either of
genuine Russia iron, or of the best quality cold rolled homo¬
geneous steel.
Table
for Punching Needle-Slot
Screens
No.
Mesh.
Width
Birmingham Decimal of
Weight
of
Slot,
Gauge Steel.
an Inch.
per
Square Foot,
1
12
.058
16
.065
2.642
2
14
.049
16
.065
2.642
3
16
.042
18
.049
1.992
4
18
.035
18
.049
1.992
5
20
.029
20
.035
1.423
6
25
.027
20
.035
1.423
7
30
.024
20
.035
1.423
8
35
.022
20
.035
1.423
9
40
.020
22
.028
1.138
10
50
.018
23
.025
1.016
11
55
.0165
23
.025
1.016
12
60
.015
24
.022
.894
13
70
.0135
24
.022
.894
NOTE.-- The
slots
are usually 15-32
inch long,
and orders
will be filled with screens having slots of that length, run¬
ning diagonally, unless otherwise specified. We are prepared,
however, to furnish screens with slots running either lengthwise
or crosswise of sheet, with openings of .uniform lengths as
follows: 15-32, 5/8 and 3/4 inch of specified widths . Slots
arranged in parallel rows or "staggered." We can vary these
spaces between slots up to certain limits. Where parties do
not specify Russia iron, we always furnish our Special Steel
Screens, which . customers find are more durable than Russia iron,
can be made somewhat heavier, and are therefore stiffer and
better screens . We would recommend ordering these screens in¬
stead of screens made from Russia iron.
WORKSHOP RSCjSIPTS. (Third Series.) By C. G. Warnford Lock,
London, 1884,
EXTRACTS .
Page 274’.
X X X X X X X
Since the hardening of steel consists of first heating and
then rapidly extracting the heat, it follows that this latter
part of the process may he performed otherwise than hy the use of
water -- such, for example, as hy placing the article in a cur¬
rent of cold air, or, if it is thin, hy placing it between 2 cold
iron plates, x x x x x x
Page 280.
xx xxx
Case-hardening Wrought-iron. — (l) Wrought-iron is nearly
pure decarbonized iron, and is not possessed of the property of
hardening. But articles made of wrought-iron may he exteriorly
converted into steel, and afterwards hardened. The process is call¬
ed case-hardening, and only differs from cementation in being
carried on f,or a shorter time; it is seldom necessary to convert
the iron into steel more than l/l6. in, deep, unless where great
stiffness as well as hardness is required. Case-hardened iron,
for various purposes, is better than steel; it has the hardness
and polish of steel externally, with a core of soft fibrous iron
in the centre. Prussiate of potash renders iron nearly as hard as
steel, by heating the iron to redness, sprinkling the potash finely
powdered upon it, and then plunging the iron into pure cold water;
but the hardness is confined to the surface, and only for articles
not exposed to much wear can a sufficient coating of steel be ob¬
tained by this process. xxx x
WORKSHOP RECEIPTS
Page 274
Since the hardening of steel consists of first heating
and then rapidly extracting the heat, it follows that this latter
part of the process may "be performed otherwise than by the use
of water - such, for example, as by placing the article in a cur¬
rent of cold air, or if it is thin, by placing it between 2 cold
iron plates. In these processes, however, the heat is not extract¬
ed quickly enough to give a great degree of hardness.
Case hardened iron, for various purposes, i£ better
than steel* it has the hardness and jl polish of steel externally,
with a cone of soft fibrous iron in the centre. Prussiate of
potash renders iron nearly as hard as steel by heating the iron to
redness, sprinkling the potash finely powdered upon it, and then
plunging the iron into pure cold water; but the hardness is con¬
fined to the surface, and only for articles not exposed to much
wear 1 tan a sufficient coating of steel be obtained by this process! •
PRASjSR & CHAIMRS CATALOGUE,
Chicago, Ill. 1898.
EXTRACTS.
TO THE TRADE:
In presenting the second edition of our No. 7 Catalogue
to our friends and the public, we would say that we have antici¬
pated the increasing demand for perforated metals by providing
ourselves with the latest improved machinery, and now consider
that we are able to meet all demands for these goods in a prompt
and satisfactory manner.
Perforated metals are far superior to wire cloth, being
much stronger, more uniform in size of hole or mesh, and less lia¬
ble to tear or rust out. In case of breaking they are easily re¬
paired without affecting the entire sheet, while in the case of
wire cloth a break extends over the whole sheet, changing the mesh,
and making it unfit for use. It is often desirable to arrange
screens with certain portions blank. This can easily be done
when perforated metals are used, but is of course impossible with
wire cloth.
Unlike wire cloth, perforated metal presents a perfectly
>•
smooth surface, allowing the grain, ore, or other material to pass
over it smoothly and quickly. It is not as liable to become
clogged, making it much more satisfactory for sizing, cleaning and
separating.
We roll plates to exact diameter of cylinder, and make
cylinders to order. Revolving screens for stone, grain, coal, ore,
etc., finished complete with one or more sizes of perforations as
desired, and so constructed as to be easily changed, and plates
with different-sized perforations substituted when necessary. De¬
signs of screens in perforated metal and wire cloth are shown on
pages 30 to 33. Screens of these and other designs furnished on
-1-
short notice at reasonable prices, complete with any specified
provision of gearing, pulleys and boxes.
The illustrations of perforated plates in this catalogue
show exact size and style of perforations, and parties ordering
from the cuts can rely upon getting their orders filled exactly
as shown.
We furnish this work in iron, copper, brass, steel,
zinc,' tin and other metals, any thickness from No. 30 wire gauge
to- l/2 inch, with size of perforations proportioned to thickness
of metal, and spaced, if wanted, as close a3 the thickness of metal
will permit.
We give on page 10 a table of standard sizes of steel
plates usually carried in stock, and call the attention of our
customers to the fact that orders for perforated plates conform¬
ing to these sizes and weights can be filled much more promptly
and at less cost than orders for odd sizes, requiring special
plates to be obtained from the mill.
We invite correspondence from parties v/ho may have any
use for perforated metal, and assure them of the lowest quotations
of prices, and the unexcelled quality of our goods.
Very respectfully,
S’RAS.SR & CHAIA13RS .
TAB IE FOR PUNCHING STEEL PLATES
This table gives the greatest.-1 thicknesses of steel in which
it is advisable to punch round or square holes of given dia¬
meters or sizes. Spacing, strain upon the plate, wear of dies
and othei]cons iderations determine what is advisable. While the
table is offered as aJconvenient guide in ordering , thinner plates
will generally answer every requirement, and cost less.
DIAMETER OF HOLE.
BIRMINGHAM GAUGE.
Millimeters.
Inches .
Decimals of
an Inch.
No.
Thickness
in Inches.
Weight per
Square Foot.
3/4
1 1/4
1 l/2
i/4
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
8
9
10'
11
12'
is'
14
15
19-
3/64
i/ie
5/64
3/32
i/8
9/64
3 >16
1/4
9 >32
5/16
3>8
i/ie
i/2
19>32
5/8
‘3/4
.02952
.03937
.04687
.04921
.05906
.06250
.07812
.07874
.08858
.09375
.09843
.11811
.125
.12795
.1378
.14062
.15748
.1771a
.18750
.19685
.21654
.23622
.25
.25591
.27559
.28125
.3125
.31496
.35433
;375
.3937
.43307
.4375
.47244
.5 .
-.51181
.55118
.59055
.59375
.625
. 74803
.75
.018
.022
.028
.035
.049
.049
.065
.065
.065
.065
.065
.083
.083
.109
.109
.109
.134
.134
.134
.134
.134
.165
.165
.187
.187
.187
.187
.187
.187
.731
.894
1.138
1.423
1.992
1.992
2.642
2.642
2.642
2.642
2.642
3.374
3.374
3.374
4.431
4.431
4.431
5.448
5.448
5.448
5.448
5.448
6.708
7.622
7.622
7.622
7.622
7.622
10.163
10.163
10.163
10.163
10.163
10.163
10.163
10.163
10.163
10.163
10.163
10.163
22 ... .86614 l/4 .25 10.163
... 7/8 .875 1/4 .25 10.163
25 ... .98425 l/4 .25 10.163
... 1 . 5/16 .312 12.703
Ill
TABLiS FOR DIFFjSRjJNT STANDARDS FOR WIRd GUAOS IN USB IN
THjS UNITiD STATES.
Dimensions of Sizes, in Decimal Farts of an IncJi.
OOOOOO : . : .
00000 : . : .
0000 : .46 : .454
000 : .40964 : .425
00 : .3648 : ?38
0 : .32486 : .34
1 : .2893 : .3
2 : .25763 : .284
3 : .22942 : .259
4:: .20431 : .238
5 : .18194 : .22
6 : .16202 : .203
7 : .14428 : .18
8 : .12849 : .165
9 : .11443 : .148
10 : .10189 : .134
11 : .090742: .12
12 : .080808: .109
13 : .071961: .095
14 : . 064084 : .083
15 : .057068: .072
16 : .05082 : .065
17 : .045257: .058
18 : .040303: .049
19 : .03589 : .042
20 : .031961: .035
' 21 : .028462: .032
22 : .025347: ,028
23 : .022571: .025
24 : .0201 : .022
25 : .0179 : .02
26 : .01594 : .018
27 : .014195: .015
28 : .012641: .014
29 : .011257: .013
30 : .010025: .012
31 : .008928: .01
32 : .00795 : .009
33 : .00708 : .008
34 : .006304': .007
35 : .005614: .005
36 : .005 : .004
37 : .004453:
38 : .003965: ....
39 : .003531: ....
40:: .003144: ....
.46
.43
.393
.362
.331
.307
.283
.263
.244
.225
.207
.192
.177
.162
.148
.135
.12
.072
.063
.054
.047
.041
.035
.032
.02
.018
.017
.016
.015
.014
.0135
.013
.011
.01
.0095
' .*45
.305
.285
.265
.245
.225
.205
.3586:
.3282:
.2994:
.2777:
.2591:
.2401:
.223 :
. 2047 :
.1885:
.1758:
.1605:
.1471:
.1351:
.1175
.105
.0925
.061
.0525
.045
.04
.035
.031
.028 :
.025
.0225
.02
.018
.015
.014
.013
.012
.011
.01
.0095:
.009
.0085
.008
.1205:
.1065:
.0928:
.0816:
.0726:
; 0627 :
.0546:
.0478:
.0411:
.0351:
.0321:
.029 :
.0261:
.0231:
.0212:
.0194:
.0182:
.017 :
.0163:
.0156:
. 0146 :
.0136:
.013 :
.0118:
.0109:
.01 :
.0095:
.009 :
.0083:
.0078:
OOOOOO
00000
0000
000
4.
5
6
7
. .083
.072
.065
.058
.049
.04
.035
.0315
.0295
. 027"'
.025
.023
. 0205
.01875
.0165
.0155
.01375
.01225
.01125
.01025
.0095
.009
.0075
.0065
.00575
.005
.0045
Mrr Folio No.
/ / / O
•..59
Serial No. /^ f
Applicant.
. ^ • . <^i
/A/lte. . Examiner’s Room No . .
■ ;; ’ Ass’g’t Exec .
Liber Page
ACTIONS.
1 /%£&.. 1 6.
2 . y'l 7:
— \...6^..x..f&.fyjjj..y \ 8.
4 . .^^<fe?z^^..........<%^ .
:..jfe d*.tf.4..k^.. 20.
. . [a&...-. . .•...:.■_ 2i.
7 . ..^'/'.:.<.:...^r, . I.:../:' .
#. .8 . ,:..a
Is » j£
;r ,0~?»
. 1 . ...
||'V '4^. 28 .
Petition.
Co tbe Commissioner of patents :
jljour [Petitioner i THOI/uVr . X. EDI SO IT, a citizen ofl the United
States, residing and having his post- office address at Ilewellyn
Park, Orange-:, Ksssox County, 17or Jersey,
IPrags tbat letters patent inag be granteb to bint for tbe IKPRDVKHEOTR I1T
KDEGTRO-MAGUKTS POR it AGNATIC SEPARATORS
set fortb In tbe atutexeb specification ; anb be berebg appoints jfranh X. ®ger (IRegls®
tratlon mo. 560), of tSblson Xaboratorg, ©range, mew 3erseg, bis attorney, wltb full
power of substitution anb revocation, to prosecute tbfs application, to mafie altera®
tlons anb amenbments therein, to receive tbe patent, anb to transact all business In
tbe patent office connecteb tberewitb. ^
i/f - ru> .
SPECIFICATION.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: -
BE IT KNOWN that I, Thomas A. Edi¬
son, of Llewellyn Park, Orange, in the County of Essex,
State of New Jersey, have invented certain improvements in
Electro-Magnets for Magnetic Separators (Ca3e No. 1,110),
of which the following is a description:
My invention relates to electro-magnets, and has
for its object so to construct them that in comparison with
those hitherto used, they shall be of very economical con¬
struction, and, for a given expenditure of electrical ener¬
gy, of greatly increased cupacity.
Hitherto, where a magnetic field of considerable
width has been necessary, the magnets have usually been of
substantially the same width as the said field, and have,
therefore, presented a great mass of metal requiring a com¬
paratively great amount of electrical energy to energise
it, thus involving considerable expense in construction
and operation.
Ercm experiments made, it has been found that an
electro-magnet may be so constructed as, in comparison
with those hitherto used, and for a given expenditure of.
electrical energy, to present a magnetic field of consider¬
ably greater width than the width of the magnet proper,
provided that certain approximate proportions be observed
in the length and cross-sectional area of the pole-pieces
and the width of the air gap, and the present Invention
consists in electro-magnets having these greatly extended
pole-pieces.
It is not proposed to state the above mentioned
proportions in anything approaching precise terms, but the
(1)
following arrangement of the apparatus, as embodied in an
electro-magnetic separator as used in the ora milling in¬
dustry, has been found to give highly satisfactory results.
This application of the improved electro-magnets to elec¬
tro-magnetic separators is merely given as an example,
and their applicability to other purposes with or without
slight variations in the stated proportions will readily
suggest themselves to the reader.
The cost of construction and the capacity of the
electro-magnetic separators, and the quality of the result¬
ant concentrates are three vital items to be considered
in the attainment of magnetic separation of iron ore on
commercially successful lines.
The cost of construction depends chiefly on the
design and arrangement of the magnet-3, and the number of
magnets required to deal with a given quantity of mater¬
ial; the capacity depends on the quantity of material
an electro-magnet is capable of separating for a given
amount of electrical energy applied; and the quality of
the resultant concentrates depends on the thickness of the
stream of ore passed in front of the magnet, and the num¬
ber of times it is so passed.
from experiments already made, 1 have found that
it is more economical to pass a thin stream of ore, say
about an eighth of an inoh in thickness, in front of three
magnets than it is to pass a stream of double than thick¬
ness In front of six magnets, the grade of the resultant
concentrates being much higher from the former system of
working than from the latter, from these deductions the
facto are established that whatever the system of electro¬
magnets used, to obtain a very high grade concentrate in
the most economical manner the said elect ro-magnets must
be cheap to construct, require little energy to magnetise
_ (a)
them, and present a large surface to the falling stream
of ore and that the ore he spread out into a thin wide
stream.
If proper constructional proportions he observed
(say, for example, such as those hereinafter specified) the
lines of force in a magnet can he made to travel along hars
of iron or soft steel to great distances and produce a mag¬
netic field of uniform strength throughout the same dis¬
tance , and advantage is taken of this fact hy using an elec¬
tro-magnet, of comparatively small Width and applying there¬
to pole-pieces of the same length ns the desired magnetic
field and constructed of iron or soft metal of the required
orooa-soctiomi area, the two pole-pieces being situated'
at the distance apart necessary to provide the appropriate
width of air gap between their..
The number of lines of force which the pole-pieces
of given cross-sections will carry with a given width of
air gap is much below the saturation point, and it has been
found that in dealing with highly magnetic ores, pole-
pieces of say four fact in length having cross-sections
of from four to eight square inches and an air gap of from
three to four and one-half inches have produced the best
resultis. The length .of the pole-pieces, however, is propor¬
tional to the. width of the air gap, the number of lines of
foroe and the oross-seotional area of the said pole-pieces.
When the improved electro-magnets are intended for
use in separating the magnetic particles from a falling
stream of ore, the low.er pole-pieces may conveniently be
of angle bar section and bolted to the lower end of the
magnet body, and the upper pole-pieoe may be formed of a
flat bar or plate bolted to the upper end of the magnet
body bo as to incline from the upper edge to the lower edge
(3)
and ao as to overlap tho lower p ole-piece ; or the said
pole-pieces may bo formed of any other desired shape in
cross-section.
In the accompanying drawings U:o improvements con¬
stituting the pro cent invention are, us an arample , repre¬
sented in the form which has bo tn found to give the best
results in their application to the magnetic separation
of iron ores.
In those drawings which are to bo read with and
taken as part of this specif ioati on:
Figure 1, is a front, elevation and
Figure 2, a plan of one of the improved magnets, and
Figure 3, is a side elevation of a portion of a 'mag¬
netic oro separator showing the said magnet embodied therein.
As represented in the drawings the improved magnet
consists of a body 1, of approximately horse-shoe form
ancl comprising: an upper portion 2, a lower portion 3, and
a vertical or middle portion, the last named of which is
encircled by and concealed within the necessary energising
coil 4. The end face of the upper portion 2, is inclined
in relation to the axis of the coil 4, and that of lower
portion 3, is parallel with the said axis, the former face
overhanging or projecting more forwardly than the latter
face, all as shown most clearly in Figure 3,
To the inclined face of the upper portion 2, the
upper pole-piece 5, is secured by two bolts 0, this pole-
piece being formed of a flat plato of iron or soft steel,
and to the vertical face of the lower portion 3, the lower
pole-piece 7, is secured by two bolts 8, this said 'pole-
piece being formed of iron or soft steel of angle bar
(4)
[•lection. The respective meeting faces of the pole-piece
5 and portion S, and of the pole piece 7 and portion 3, are
truly planed and surfaced to as to provide the best con¬
tacts possible between the said parts.
In the practical embodiment of the Improved mag¬
net represented in figure 3, the said magnet in supported
in Buch a position that the two pole pieces, 5 and 7, are
situated above a separating board or partition 10,' the up¬
per pole-piece 5, overhanging the front of the partition
and the lower pole-piece 7, overhanging the rear of this
partition.
Above the pole-piece 5, is provided a hopper 11,
having a sui table feed roller 12, which delivers the crushed
,ore from the hopper 11, in a thin stream, on to an inclined
chute 13, which, in turn, delivers it. on to an inclined
board or plate 14. This board 14, serves to check the
descent of the ore so that the ore will fall upon the up¬
per face of the pole-piece 5, near the lower edge thereof,
immediately after it haa been brought to rest, wherefore
the material will not acquire any appreciable velocity
,by the time it reaches the lower edge of the said pole-
piece. The non-magnetic particles falling over the edge
of the. polo-piece 5, drop by gravity in front of the parti¬
tion 10, that is, the left hand 3ide of it in figure 3,
while the magnetic particles, acted upon hy the lines of
force between the two pole3 5 and 7, are drawn rearwards
( or rightwards in figure 3) and thereby separated from the
descending ganglia and caused to fall at the rear or right
side of the partition, all as indicated in figure 3, wherein
the resultant accumulations of magnetic and non-magnetic
particles are respectively marked 15 and 16.
Without in any way restricting the invention to
any specific dimensions or proportions it may be mentioned
S. In aA electro-magnet, the combination with the
magnet \ody, of \ ole-pieces of a length c onnifierably great¬
er than the widthW the magnet body, and made separate
the ref ran and attached thereto, and means for attaching
the a aid pole pieces to the magnet body, substantially as
set forth. \ \
\
1 electro-m;
the combination with the
magnet body, of pole-pieces of length considerably greater
fV;r
Aace be i ng \ ub
than the width
from, one p do¬
ty , and( made separate there-
s the other and made of
flat metal plate inclined ii\ a direction transverse to
its length, and the othei^p ol^-piece being of angle bar
, substui
7. In an electro magnet,
magnet body, of p ole-pie
combination with the
c oh side rably "greater
of\lch|;th
than the width of the magnet bodyn Wd made separate there-
p ole-piece, being above fho\ other and made of flat
i\cfjansverso to
from, orji
metal plate inclined in a dirtsir
length, the other pole-p:ieco being ofVlngle bar section,
the edges of the two pole-pieces and biflmeiin which the
magnetic field is formed, being 3ituatwdV\j different'
vertical planes, substantially as sat fort^
(7)
Ebis specification signed and witnessed tbis // dap of i /tus, 190J
rv-
1. . .
2 . .
Oath.
State of
Count? of
iy/ &ur
^SL^t^C
THOMAS A. EDI SOI! , tbe above=named
petitioner, belno dnlp sworn, deposes and saps tbat be is a citizen
of tbe united States, and a resident of Elev/wllyn Park, Orange,
in the County of Ensex and State: Of New Jersey;
tbat be verilp believes bimself to be tbe original, first and sole inventor of tbe
IiO’KOVNEENTR Iff EDECTOO-KACKTKT3 POP. MAGNETIC SEPAT.ATOHS
described and claimed in tbe annexed specification ; tbat be does not [mow and does
not belteve tbat tbe same was ever [mown or used bp others in tbe TUnited States of
Hmerica before bis invention or discoverp thereof ; or patented or described in anp
printed publication in tbe Ulnited States of Hmerfca or anp foreign countrp before bis
invention or discoverp thereof, or more than two pears prior to tbis application ; or
In public use or on sale in tbe Tiluited States for more than two pears prior to this1
application, and tbat no application for patent upon said invention bas been filed bp
him or bis legal representatives or assigns in anp foreign countrp more than seven
months prior to tbe filing of tbis application.
Sworn to and subscribed before me tbis
[Seal]-
^ dap of 1 100 3
motarp public.
-Ni)Tl**Y NEW WRS»Y,
m.e.o.
Room No...3lU5.
%rf.
department or the Interior,
United States (Patent Office,
WASHINOTON, D. C., AUg. 89 , 1903 ,
ShonSS A. Edison, CffTT
Oaro Prank X> Dyer,
i I Orange, H.J.
•IATEI'/t OF!
AUG 29 jouy
■p^-^-lXj±nT^J
Please find below a communication from the EXAMINER in charge of your application,
#L6§;,‘& 54, filed Aug. 13, 1903, for Electro-Magnet for MWjridtio Sep¬
arators. ~
h i
J. mL- .
Applioant is required to cancel “{Case Ko.1,118)* fro* the
preanble of the specif toation.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected as destitute of patentable novelty
' \S ‘ I/" 1
in view of 89,188, Righter, Sept. 84, 1867j 883,991, Pritn, Jan. 87,
1880 tf is. 6) ; 308,778, Ripley at al., Oot,. 31, 1884, figs. 3 and
8} and 783,389, Winder, June 84, 1983, jjaffietio Separators.
Old m 3 Is r ejected as lacking invention in view of the above
’ ' l/' . •
cited, references, and English patent 14,368, fhe Edison Ore Hilling
Syndicate (lira) , Aug. 10, 1900, Hagnetio Separators.
fllni ms 4 and 8 are rejected on the saae referenees a# claim jfc.
See Rifjhter and Winder for separate or separable poieF?piei»sv , .
;Oikns 6 and 7 are rejected in view of the above cited referem
and :47.8iJ»89, Edison, HWoh 18, 1898, Hagnetio Separators.
Jtsaniner,
Case No,..?r^../>|)|H!i' Nu,../..
UNITED STATES PATENT OPEIGB,
/
4
■&h
i
Thomas A. Edison,
Electro-magnets for
Magnetio Separators. : Room Ho. 315.
Eiled August l?th,1903.
Serial Ho^ 169, >334.
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER 03? PATENTS.
Sir:- !
Replying to office action of August 29th, 1903,
Ipleaoe amend the above entitled oaae as follows:
°:La^ns on f ile, and insert the following cStims:
l^In a magnetic separator, a sloping check board,
an electro-magnet having an upper pole piece which consists
of a plate- sloping downward toward the lower edge of the
|hack board\»nd an epqrgtiieg coil, whose width is con¬
siderably le.qs^ than the width of said pole pieoe, substan¬
tially ap sqt forth.
2-,Elni a magnetic^ separator, a sloping check board, an
electroj-mag^et having^an upper pole pieoe which consists
of a j^ate ^sloping downward toward the lower edge of the
check'bo/ird'? a lower polVpieoe which oonsists of a plate
extending forward from theSbody of the magnet at an angle
to the direction of flow of the naterial, and an energiz¬
ing, coil whose.', width is c on si de'rably loss than the width
of -said pole pieces, substantially. as set forth.
"'3V In a magbetio separator, a Bioping oheok board, an
eleotro- magnet, having an upper pole pieoe which consists
of a pisyte feLoping downward toward the ^ower edge of the
ohedk board $ a lower pole. pieoe which oonsists of an angle
plate having one flange seoured to the body df the magnet
\
h.m o..
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
United States Patent Office,
Washington, d. c., Aprl 1,^.' #0**
atiiafi ae amended April Id, M04, further considered.
Olatai 1 is Rejected in view of the British patent of record,
and any Instance of a coil of amU dimensions in connection with
a. wide pole piece -- Richter, Ripley of. al . , dr Winder of record*
"'•rClais 8 is rejected Upon the safee references as claim 1.
Claim A is rejected as destitute of indention in view .of the
references for olaira 1 and 408,684, kfctim, May 7, 1689, Karnetie
' :V • '• •/•■' ■■"• -• . (' ■ ‘ i
Separators, shewing pole pieoos formed of detachable ancle irons.
'v ’ Rjcamin er,
Mvisicn 77V.
V
August' 26,1904
Charles g. V/oodroffe, EBq.,
188 Eleet Street,
London, E.C., England.
Bear Sir:-
I enclose herewith, a copy of the last Office action
in the case of application of Thoms A. Edison for patent for
Electro-Magnet for Magnetic separators, filed August 13, 1903, the
said action Being dated April 29, 1904. I also enclose copies of
all the references which have been cited by the Examiner and a copy
of the claims which were last acted upon by the Examiner.
As you will observe, these claims are somewhat more
limited than those originally filed. The Examiner is unable to see
anything patentable in providing the separator magnets of British
patent No. 14,355 of August 10, 1900, with extended pole pieces -
that is, pole pieces whose width is considerably greater than the
width of the energii'rrg coil , in view of the U. S. patents cited as
showing pole pieces of this character.
There does not appear to be very much chance of obtain*
ing a U. S. patent unless we can point out some< difference in princti
pie or result accomplished by the Edison device, different t from the
principles or results of the references.
'I
I’
CharleB S. Woodruff e , EBq,. . . . 2
Will you kindly take up this matter with Ur. Ballen-
tine or others who have worked with these separators, and let me
know whether or not they consider the subject-matter of the applica¬
tion anticipated by these references and if not, the reasons why;
the references do not anticipate.
yours very truly, .
dii/km.
Encs.
Department of the Interior
UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE.
Washington, D.C. April 29,1904
Thomas A. Edison,
Care Prank 1. Dyer,
Orange, N. J.
Please find 'below a communication from the
EXAMINER in charge of your application No. 169,334, filed August
13, 1903, for Electro-Magnet for Magnetic Separators.
P. I. Allen,
Commissioner of Patents.
Case as amended April 16, 1904, further considered.
Claim 1 is rejected in view of the British Patent of record,
and any instance of a coil of small dimensions in connection with
a wide pole piece — Righter, Ripley et al, or Winder of record.
Claim 2 is rejected upon the same reference as claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected as destitute of .(Invention in view of
the references for claim 1 and 402,684, Maxim, May 7, 1889, Magnetic
Separators, showing pole pieces formed of detachable angle irons.
Examiner,
Division XXV.
COPY
1. In a magnetic separator, a sloping check hoard,
an electro-magnet having an upper pole piece which consists
of a plate sloping downward toward the lower edge of the
check hoard, and an energizing ooil, whose width is consid¬
erably less than the width of said pole piece, substantial¬
ly as set forth.
2. In a magnetic separator, a sloping check hoard,
an electro-magnet having an upper pole piece which con¬
sists of a plate sloping downward toward the lower edge
of the check hoard, a lower pole piece vrtiich consists of
a plate . ext enditajr forward from -the .-body, iof -the magnet^alt
a'n angle, :to the direction of flow of the material, and an
energizing coil whose 'width is considerably less than the
width of said pole pieces, substantially as set forth.
3. In a magnetic separator, a sloping check hoard,
an electro-magnet having an upper pole piece 'which con¬
sists of a plate sloping downward toward the lower edge of
the check hoard, a lower pole piece which consists of an
angle plate having one flange secured to the body of the
magnet and the other flange extending forward therefrom at
an angle to the direction of flow of the material, and
energizing ooil whose width is considerably less than the
width of Bald pole pieces, substantially as set forth,
Chas. S. Woodroffe.
FAC.
^ ?<9& .<&cee£‘zJffiee&
<Z^^O?Z<ZO?Z/ 3rd>-Decembe'r. 1904.
Frank L. Dyer Esq.,
Edison Laboratories (Legal Department),
OEANGE, N.J. U.S.A.
Dear Sir,
Edison U, S.A. Patent Application filed Aug. 13th 1903.
In reply to yours of August 26th last, I have been in coin-
munication with Mr .Ballantine several times, and regret that I cannot
give you any assistance in the prosecution of the above application.
In view of the numerous references quoted against the- alleged inven¬
tion I have come to the conclusion that there is no invention in it
at all. 4SL1 the applications which I have filed on this side in '
countries v/here applications are examined for novelty have been
unsuccessful.
Yours faithfully,
TOUTED STATES PATENT OEEICE
Thomas A. Edison
Piled August 13, 1903
Serial No. 169,334
Room No. 315.
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS
SIH: -
Replying to Office aotion of April
29, 1904, please amend the above entitled case as follows:
Cancel the claims on file and insert the follow¬
ing claim: K , . , / .
electro-magnet having
i magnetic sAparator,
laterally elongated pole pt^oes and an energizing coil
whose width is considerably
pole pieces, the number of lin&>
circuit being greatly below the
than the width of said
force in the magnetic
Ltuhation point of the
I
pole pieces and the magnetio field b^ing of praotioally
uniform strength throughout the width or lateral extent of
the pole pieces, substantially aB set foiS|
')
<v
REMARKS
The above claim is believed to be patentable overt
the references. Although certain of the references show
magnets provided with elongated pole pieces, none of tthe
references explains how a uniform magnetio field may be
obtained throughout the lateral extend of the pole pieoeB,
1.
and consequently faille to disclose a magnet which would j
possess the utility and acc ompliah the functions of appli- j
oant's invention.
It is of the utmost importance that the magnet¬
ic field he of uniform strength throughout the width of j
the air gap, because otherwise it will he impossible to j
obtain an efficient separation. Heretofore this has been !
done by using pole pieces ’whose width is approximately !
the same or less than that of the energizing coIIb, but j
this method is objectionable, since a large amount of en- i
ergy iB used up in the energizing coils in proportion to
the amount of material which can be treated by such an j
apparatus. It is therefore desirable to increase the j
width of the pole pieces. This, however, will usually have j
the effect of producing a strong field at the points near- [
est the energizing coils and a field of diminished streng¬
th at the more remote parts of the pole pieces. Appli¬
cant, however, has designed a magnet which produces a
field of perfectly uniform strength throughout the entire
extent of the pole pieces, so that large amounts of mater-
!
ial can be treated in an efficient manner as regards sep- |
aration and with a great Baving in the amount of current j
used for energizing the current. This feature being novel !
and useful it is believed that the claim should be allowed.i j
Orange, Hew Jersey,
April / 1905.
BeBpeotfully submitted,
THOMAS A. EDISOH,
■ Qi'LsA
His Attorney.
/
M.B.O.
Div.__.4Jg., Room _
DEPARTMENT OF THE iNTERIOn
United States Patent Office,
Washington, c
Thomas A. Bdisofl,
Oars Prank L. Dyer,
Orange, H. J.
May 24, 1905.
M/Jv Vs5' ,
Hoiuik find below a communication from the EXAMINER in charge of
#169,334, filed Aug 13, 1903, for Bleotro-Hagnet for Jiagnetio
Separator, J
Case as amended April 3, 1905, further considered.
The olalm is rejected in view of Rlghter and Winder of reoord.
Bxamlner,
Division XXV.
■ iT
UNITED STATES PATENT OEEIOE,
Thomas A. Edison
Piled August 13, 1903
Serial No. 169,334.
Room No. 315
honorabie commissioner op patents
SIR: —
Replying to Offioe action of May
24, 1905, please amend the above entitled caee by cancell¬
ing the olaimB and inserting the following claims;
~~~ — — In a magnetic separator, a sloping oheok
board, an eleotro-mdgnet having an upper pole piece which
consists of a plate sloping downward toward the lower edge
of the check board and an energizing coil whose width is
considerably less than the width of said pole piece,
the number of lines of force in the magnetic oiroult
being greatly below the saturation point of the pole
pieoes and the magnetic field being of praotioally uniform
strength throughout the width or lateral extent of the
| polo pieces, oubstantially as set forth.
2. In a magnetic separator, a Bloplng check
Jboard, an eleotro-magnet having an upper pole pieoe which
consists of a plate sloping downward toward the lower edge
of the oheok board, a lower pole pieoe whioh consists of
a plate extending forward from the body of the magnet
at an angle to the direction of flow of the material,
land an energising coll whose width is considerably less
than the width of said pole pieoes, the number of lines of
erf-"/0?
foroa in the magnetio circuit being greatly below the sat¬
uration point of the pole pieces, and the magnetio field
being of praotioally uniform strength throughout the width
or lateral extent of the pole pieoes, substantially as set
forth. - — -
-REMARKS-
Applioant has limited the claims to what he
believes to be the aotual invention as fully Bet forth
in the speoifioation. The advantages of this struoture
over the prior art have been fully explained, and as the
struoture now claimed is not disolosed in any or all of
the references, the olaims are believed to be allowable,
which is respeotfully solicited.
THOMAS A. EDISON
By
Orange , New Jersey Attorney.
January/ / 'Y 1906.
3.
M.B.O.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.
United States Patent Office,
■Washington, D. C.,
Thomas A. Edison,
Cara Frank L . Dyer,
Orange, B.J. ^ ..
Please find below a communication from the EXAMINER in charge of your application,
#169,334, filed August 13, 1903, for Electro-Magnet for Magnetic
Separator.
Commissioner- of Paien ts .
Case as amended January 18, 1906, further considered.
The claims are rejected as destitute of patentable novelty
in view of the references noted in the last offioe letter and
British patent 14,306, The Edison Ore Milling Syndicate, August 10,
1900, Magnetic Separators. -
Examiner,
Division XXV.
UNITED STATES PATENT OPFIOl
Thomas A. Edison )
ELECTRO MONETS EOR MAGNETIC )
SEPARATORS :
)
Piled August 13, 1903 :
Serial No. 169,334 :
Room No. 315
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS
S I H | -
Replying to 03'fice
action of January 22, 1906, please amend the above en¬
titled case by correoting the spelling of the word
"magnet", in line 2, claim 1.
R E M ARKS
A reconsideration of the claims is requested.
The claims specify an electro magnet of a particu¬
lar form, the energizing coil of which is of considerably
less width than the upper pole-piece or both pole-pieoes,
the number of lines of foroe in the magnetic circuit
being greatly below the saturation point of the pole-
pieoes, and the magnetic field being of praotically uni¬
form strength throughout the width or lateral extent of
the pole-iieoes. There is no disclosure of these
features in any or all of the references.
In British Patent No. 14,365 of 1900, the ooils are
of substantially the same width as the pole-pieoes, and thi
struoture is therefore Bubjeot to the objections pointed
out on page 1 of the present specification.
Applioant has discovered the conditions under
which, the width of the gole-pieoes may ha greatly increased
and economies in the ubo of the energizing current se¬
cured. He states that "in dealing with highly magnetic
ores, pole-pieces of say four feet in length having orosB-
soctions of from four to eight square inches and an air
gap of from three to four and one-half inches, have pro¬
duced the hast reBultB. The length of the pole -pi sees ,
however, is proportional to the width of the air gap, the
number of lines of force and the cross-Beotional area of
the said poler pieces" (page 3) .
Although some of the reforonoes, namely, Righter
and Winder, show magnets whose pole-pieces are of much
greater width than the coils, those references are
evidently very remote from the present invention. There
is no attempt to secure a uniform magnetic field.
In the Righter patent ther3 is no means for passing
a stream of magnetio material aoros3 the pole-pieoes,so
it appears immaterial whether or not the magnetio field
is uniform. The magnets rotate, and do not 3erve to
deflect moving particles, hut merely to piok up station¬
ary ones.
In the patent to Winder, the magnets are merely
used for removing pieces of iron from cotton and it is
also immaterial whether the field he uniform or not.
There is no means shown hy which the apparatus oould separ¬
ate magnetic particles hy deflection in the manner in
which applicant's device operates.
The olaimn being limited to
being dearly novel, it is thought
allowed.
Respectfully submitted.
Orange, Hew Jersey
January // 1907 .
the invention, and
that they should be
OJtAS A. EDI SOU
Jfc S~T~ _
His Attorney.
2—800.
U.B.C.
D.v.-8^
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
United States Patent Office,
WASHINGTON, D. C., Jtto. 29, 1907 .
fhos. A. Sdiaon,
Cara Srank £. Dyer,
Orange, 1J.J.
Please find below a communication, from the EXAMINER in charge of your application,
#169,3,54, filed Aug. 13, 1903, for Bleotro-Hagnet for Magnetic
Separators,
Case rs amended and argued Jan. 12, 19q7,
The claims are again and finally rejected upon the references
Examiner, Dir. X3CV,
nu,,
EbA-s invention relates to electro-magnets and has
for its object so to construct them that in comparison
with those hitherto used, they shall be of very economical
construction, and, for a given expenditure of electrical
5, energy, of greatly increased capacity.
Hitherto where a magnetic field of considerable
width has been necessary, the magnets have usually been of
substantially the same width as the said field and have
therefore presented a great mass of metal requiring a com-
10. paratively great amount of electrical energy to energise.
it, thus involving considerable expense in construction
and operation.
Prom experiments made, it has been found that an
electro-magnet may be so constructed as, in comparison
15. with those hitherto used, and for a given expenditure of
electrical energy, to present a magnetic field of consider¬
ably greater width than the width of the magnet, proper.
-1-
provided that certain approximate proportions be observed
in the length and cross-sectional area of the pole-pieces
and the width of the air gap, and the present invention
consists in electro -magnets having these greatly extended
pole-pieces.
It is not proposed to state the above mentioned pro¬
portions in anything approaching precise terms, but the
following arrangement of the apparatus as embodied in an
electro-magnetic separator as used in the ore milling
industry, has been found to give highly satisfactory
results. This application of the improved electro¬
magnets to electro-magnetic separators is merely given as
example and their applicability to other purposes with
or without Blight variations in the stated proportions
will readily suggest themselves to the reader.
The cost of construction and the capacity of the
electro-magnetic separators, and .the quality of the result
ant concentrates are three vital items to be considered
in the attainment of magnetic separation of iron ore Oft
commercially successful lines.
The cost of construction depends chiefly on the
design and arrangement of the magnets, and the number of
magnets required to deal with a given quantity of mater¬
ial; the capacity depends on the quantity of material
an electro -magnet is capable of separating for a given
amount of electrical energy applied; and the quality
of the resultant concentrates depends on the thickness
of the stream of ore passed in front of the magnet, and
the number of times .it is so passed.
4
Prom experiments already made, -we have found that it
-2- •
is more economical to pass a thin stream of ore, say
about an eighth of an inch in thickness, in front of three
magnets than it is to pass a stream of double that thick¬
ness in front of six magnets, the grade of the resultant
concentrates being much higher from the former system of
working than from the latter. From these deductions the
facts are established that whatever the system of electro¬
magnets UBed, to obtain a very high grade concentrate in
the! most economical manner the said electro-magnets muBt
be cheap to construct, require little energy to magnetise
them, and present a large surface to the falling stream
of ore and that the ore be spread out into a thin wide
stream.
If proper constructional proportions be observed (say
for example such as those hereinafter specified) the lines
of force in a magnet can be made to travel along bars of
iron or soft steel to great distances and produce a mag¬
netic field of uniform strength throughout the same dis¬
tance and advantage is taken of this fact by using an elec¬
tro magnet of comparatively small width and applying there¬
to pole-pieces of the same length as the desired magnetic
field and constructed of iron or soft steel of the required
cross-sectional area, the two pole-pieces being situated
at the distance apart necessary to provide the appropriate
width of air gap between them.
Xhe nuaiber of lines of force which the pole-pieces
of given cross-sections will carrry with a given width of
air gap is much below the saturation point and it has been
found that in dealing with highly magnetic ores, pole-
pieces of say four feet in length having cross sections
of from four to eight square inches and an air gap. of frcm
three to four and half inches have produced the best re¬
sults. The length of the pole-pieces however is propor¬
tional to the width of the air gap, the number of lines of
force, and the cross sectional area of the said pole-pieces.
When the improved electro-magnets are intended for
use in separating the magnetic particles from a falling
stream of ore, the lower pole-piece may conveniently be
of angle bar section and bolted to the lower end of the
magnet body, and the upper pole-piece may be formed of a
flat bar or plate bolted to the upper end of the magnet
body so as to incline from, the upper edge to the lower edge
and so as to overlap the lower pole-piece; or the said
pole-pieces may be f ormed of any dther desired shape in
oross section.
In the accompanying drawings the improvements con¬
stituting the present invention are, as an exanple, re¬
presented in the form which has been found to give the
best results in their application to the magnetic separation
of iron ores. >
In these drawings which are to be read with , and
taken as part of this specification:-
Figure 1 is a front elevation and
Figure 2 a plan of one of the improved, magnets, and
Figure 3 is a side elevation of a portion of a magnetic
ore separator shewing the said magnet enfoodied therein.
As represented in the drawings the improved magnet
consists of a body 1 of approximately horse-shoe form
and comprising an upper portion 2, a lower portion 3 and
a vertical or middle portion the last named of which is er:-
circles^ by and concealed within the necessary energising
coil 4. The end face of the upper portion 2 is. inclined
in relation to the axis of the coil 4, and that of lower
portion 3 ip parallel with the said axis, the former face
overhanging or projecting more forwardly than. the latter
face, all aB shewn most clearly in Figure 3.
To the inclined face of the upper portion 2, the
upper pole-piece 5 is secured by two bolt3 6 this pole-
piece being formed of a flat plate, of iron or soft steel,
and to the vertical face of the lower portion 3, the lower
pole-piece 7 is secured by two bolts 8 this said pole-
piece being formed of iron or soft steel of angle bar
section. The respective meeting faceB- of the pole-piece
5 and portion 2, and of the pole-piece 7 and portion 3 are
truly planed and surfaced so as to provide the best con¬
tacts possible between the said parts.
In the practical embodiment of the improved magnet
represented in figure 3 the said magnet i3 supported in
such a position that the two pole pieces '5 and 7 are situat¬
ed above a. separating board or partition 10 the upper pole-
pi^ce 5 overhanging the front of the partition and the
lower pole piece 7 overhanging the rear of this partition.
Above the pole-piece 5 is provided a hopper 11 having
a suitable feed roller 12 Which delivers the crushed ore
from the hopper 11, in a thin stream, on to an inclined '
chute. 13 which, in turn,- delivers it on. to an inclined
board or plate' 14. This board 14 serves to check the
descent of the' ore so that the ore will fall upon the
• upper face of the pole-piece 5 near the lower edge thereof,
immediately after it has been brought to rest, wherefore
the material will not acquire any appreciable velocity
by the time it reachea the lower edge of the Said pole-
piece.' • The non-magnetic partlclea falling over the edge
of the pole-piece 5, drop by gravity in front of the parti¬
tion 10, til at ia, the left hand aide of it in figure 3,
while the magnetic particles, acted upon by the lineo of
force between the two pole3 5 and 7, are drawn rearwardB
(or rightwards in figure 3) and thereby separated from the
descending gangue and caused to fall at the rear or right
aide of the partition, all as indicated in figure 3 wherein
the resultant accumulations of magnetic and non-magnetic
particles are respectively marked 15 and 16,
Without in any way restricting the invention to any
specific dimensions or proportions it may be mentioned that
for dealing with a stream of ore four feet wide, highly
satisfactory and commercially successful results have been
obtained from apparatus the various parts of which have
borne the relative proportions represented in the drawings,
the pole-pieces 5 and 7 each being four feet long.
1. An electro-magnet having pole-pieces of considerably
greater length than the width of the magnet body,
jjO'ZZL .
2. An electro-magnet having pole-pieces of considerably
greater length than the width of the magnet body and of a
cross sectional area not loss than sufficient to carry
■lines of force creating a magnetic field uniform through¬
out the length of the said pole-pieces., ^
ALfr ^ o-CuL , '
Aiyslebtro-magnet having poxe-
-s/ctional/area of! the si
the length and cross-
and/ bhe width of "the
y^ons approximately i
itional/area ok the said po\le-pieces
gap between then/having propor-
In an electro-magnet, the combination with the magnet
body, of pole-pieces thereon of considerably greater
length than the width of the magnet body one pole-piece
being above the other and inclined so that material deliver
ed on to its upper surface will by gravity fall off there-
from^SroU, L^Uc^cfk, ^
fX. In an electro-magnet the combination with the magnet '
body, of pole-pieces thereon of a length considerably
-7-
boater than the width of the magnet "body, one pole-piece
being above the other and having its edge situated in a
vertical plane different from that in which is situated
the edge of the lower pole-piece^. ■
In an ele ctro -magnet , the combination with the magnet
body^ of pole-pieces of a length considerably greater
than the width of the magnet body, and made separate
therefrom and attached thereto, and means for attaching .
the said pole-pieces to the magnet body,
PT. (o In an electro-magnet, the combination with the magnet
body, of pole-pieces of length considerably greater than
the width of the magnet body, and made separate there¬
from, one pole-piece being above the other and made of
flat metal plate inclined in a direction transverse to
its length and the other pole-piece being of angle bar
section, 9>^7ZTXu&, ^
0:J In an electro-magnet, the combination with the magnet
body, of pole-pieces of length considerably greater. than
the width of the magnet body, and made separate therefrom,
one polerpieoe being above the other and made of flat
metal plate inclined in a direction transverse to its
length, the other pole-piece being of angle bar section,
the edges of the two pole-pieces and between which the
magnetic field is formed, ' being situated in different
vertical planes, ^ (uA
'^| j‘ Applicant. Address.
|| | df- . .
yU •■ * . ^^4 7 . ■
■f.: )
;•/■'■' ■ ••
. /jf Title . ^ . dy
. C*; Filed Cc <£/?. V ^ /(7tL. Examiner’s Room No / 7 $ .
!': ^ ; -
!'?■!' ‘ /
. • ^ Assignee .
V . VAss’g't Exec . Recorded . Liber Page
f ■ ' Patent No. 7.77 C: CJ / ,3, Issued C. I J, i<6. 3 6r . 7 '
,J ; ACTIONS.
, ' '^■^^7f7x?r--^rrrrT-..7^kf^i.Utrlrf.77^3'':.^~/.f.^ J6 . . afeeu* -rCZ.
2....7C^mu^.d^O. ...^u^..(^.y..7f.p,d i7 . ; _
j i 3 . . ' . (Lj^. ^ is . . .
: 7 ,; 5 20 .
j.; (*<.cU.aC. . 7> £?&£.. 21 . : .
j|; 1 1 ■■■(fytybdidM. 22 . ' . f
i' v . £%&.-.... '.:...‘rT<17 . 23 . ■ - . J
I: 24
1 - •) 1 .tfftrf 25 . .
j. V . .v. . 26 .
| ' f2' •:; . • . 27 . ,.; . 1:.,, . . I.
!. |3.:....;...: . 28 . .(. . . . : . ;. .
(l 14-,;.., . . 29 . :,:. . .
£%5 . . . . . . . . 30 . .'. . . . . . . . . .
!: ‘ > FRANK L. DYER,
'k.'-'T "v " ' ^Cojinsel,
m%S£ ' I '_ V> ORANGE, new jersey.
| ’ Ccoul cU^C-l^ L<-tj ^ /ten*, ■'
Qj^J fb^y 'y-t-Ztury, C-t^u — . 'VO/- ‘f£^.< A :%<C (J~
^ 'a-^L. 7 w/
5Vu*4C,_ ; CL^-?
. . ., ■' • . w a-^-w ^ /oo°(L i
Jll,l!~L2 Zt'Va// £Ll-/^/ c 3 <”H* p^Ui 'V/ t'UL^ ft ■ ' •"'
/—$ r ' ; i
t w Ulg d^w.
■ SV ~U*. H
, , ’ ___-.' " ' ' / ■
U-lstsA. .^4. C- 'I-L^c.f'- cTl /^,(*-d-tS? <L.tf/<-/^-^- '"»'
iu-^yC ^iyUdd "£, Ituis/t , *ouJl ''■»"- *'■
j H «-<UJly r J-lt-V A 'At. '!• (
-h^-r^> ’ jL~* e.s-'/L/C^ - " </<£- tT^J' S^^Cril,
y-^/C , yC^SZ-P ■ «->-<- V - ,
: "4 .0O/J- ^5' -/ , /
r-~_i d— ■■;*££
7(V h)Js ov ) a • - p-«
L-tislx ~ Aj—isL./. 'n-t-t-zic-C, ~%ci ’
. 0 a 6 S~. 'J (’Lf .
r-7&-r, , /-
■ i c<j,~^^'zz^ >y '
. £ ^Vvl
27. .. / 77,. *w-7U7 s-v— ^ <- ^
>«..«. J2L/ud, ^c.3 ^-^7 r"'^
A-/ V^.,.,1..,^ 7c_vt^^<-^ ’^/C. ‘t~e.t~sU-*:}'^' <”'' 7^ /~<^'c'
S-K-utz: 77c yL.t'L<' /u6<isC~.^ t
-sr'i.,' ■ Aj/ .^/C,
y U^f. s^'-~<— ^ — : /t*z; /<-?.
( ^vs-i- C^-it C-jc.Csf' _ (?z£a^i -<-^^—-<-'^~<-^ -^.Z-'A-j/Lt,x_A^iA-£y 7?, ^t_ ■
• y //7 0^-^/^.z^.i /7V ^ _
: kJ 7 - - <5 / t,Yc TTi.
. . ■'..,; \ ': , . . ^ ■ «^o s
i: ' ' “• A^A a /'-,_
T'fc:
Jtfju, nJ
)bMo
Cujzjc
'LjCjs <2-&,*£e__
Jyp^ -U. Uf wU- •&$***% *fc',;:
^ ^ A'**’' /5~
Jj[V^rU^A -
. ....-huu, ^ Lf^UZX' ^ A ^jLvv, f
^\ju^ ' <Lcj\]\JUl*sCU '
(Tf £u OuAuXuu^ rn^.,/iu Iflj a_ ■
■/^^UVu^ ^LixYTLp ‘^•Aj 'I.-Xi.yh ' tVv\:- A (Vi-WiA .
O^fu^U A <L . r^triwtu^ *j &U a^^Mrvu^i. .
ai O^uJxXu ^ ■
oV ^ U ' ,
" ?Aft 1 iw M ' 1 •■
^/2/vu. ' C^fiAslatL v d^TwCio
CwA-C^i A'l/'CwCvv y.
. Ao-Uxuv
lu- Atuixuv ft) AoXfU^- (A i/vv>j
AU trl- ftAAfu-vt'j '
^!Vvtj ^ ^qaiJa/I Ou.
! ■' 'UaaAZ4 U ^ ^
" kuxdUkj , Ji^Jsif •
auuA V* €^UA4 ' /Llf^ ^ (Wvto A'-k^ZZ
h> ^t>VvvA__ ^ ■' . ' .
i^- 6oiXe ' &<_ f
tr^h^
■ A— sqAsjJL jyJ^Ctsz
' -UAstk. tfkslunv* /d t CJLi i.^
cLujuwlr frhh.^.
^ O^vfryK^i
^si. -
;o r(Lz tA ' "’”
eltnsJhtc. /0 ii,L ( vj- - ' Cy .
'j^irtCyl'-
Ov Qeni~t^
'kojc ' -Atr
(JtV A-<i<-( tft'^UsUMZ. C^Cif
y^i. w. ' $ ^(^C^to' . >
t/UK'-
orhx. I 3f "jfuda .
4^ /das>AM_, la-vm^X-j
i A.
"yi^/tc! '&-0 —
(LLuArrfty(w»J\ . : / a .
4Jr &Mt (W
jt^jU ^ urtt- y f
4 uU^ " 'us&*k.
A ' , /)- J rW/AeSr
^Wwv *■/ IaSLLmA
""y \D^y\x>
Wir|o rw i)f &&£#* iUjwttwn- C^SHriv#^ (V/wji)
Hot" ^ lu^fruucix
Cast-iron work, before being nickel-plated, requires to
be first placed in the potash bath, to remove grease, it is then
to be well rinsed in cold water, and afterwards immersed in a pickle
of sulphuric acid (half-a-pound of acid to each gallon of water) un¬
til the black scale usually found upon its surface becomes readily
removable by brushing with sand and water. Some persons use powder¬
ed pumice for this purpose, but the author prefers sand, for the
reason that this substance, besides being cheaper than pumice, leaves
ohe surface of the work brighter; and since cast-iron work is gen¬
erally required to be left dead (that is, not polished) it presents
an agreeably bright appearance, when plated, which the pumice pre¬
pared work does not equal. In cast-iron articles, the existence of
numerous "sand-holes" is frequently a source of great trouble to
the nickel-plater, inasmuch as it is impossible to obtain a deposit
of nickel upon any surface which is not absolutely free from foreign
matter. Again, nickel has such a great objection to turning a
corner, under any circumstances, that unless the sand-holes are
perfectly clean, this metal will not become deposited even in the i
most trifling hollows. It is well, therefore, in order to obtain /
a deposit of nickel in the crevices referred to, to ascertain that
they are quite free from non-conducting matter, which may be done *
by means of a sharp steel point, or the work may be brushed with the :
steel wire brushes employed for this and similar purposes, and this
generally has the effect of rendering slight hollows free from ob¬
jectionable matter. /
- 11
130. M. Klein, of St. Petersburg, has succeeded in making
electrotypes of iron as a substitute for copper electrotypes, and
it is said that the improvement has been eminently successful in its
application to bank-note printing, &c.. After having tried solu¬
tions of iron, but with only partial success, M. Klein at last found
one which answered his purpose thoroughly. This bath consists of
a solution of sulphate of iron, from which the iron is precipitated
by carbonate of ammonia. The precipitate is then dissolved in the
sulphuric acid. The solution must be evaporated to expel any free
acid. Another bath consists of equal parts of chlorate of ammonia
and sulphate of iron. Both these baths must be used as concentrated
as possible. An iron anode is to be employed exposing about wight
times more surface than the copper cathode which is to be coated
presents. After being worked sometime, the deposit became faulty,
which was found to be due to the presence of acid in the bath. This
acidity was proved oto be due to the anode not supplying the solu¬
tion with the proper equivalent of iron-..to replace that which has
been deposited, h. Klein then introduced a copper anpde, as well as
an iron anode, and the bath soon became neutral again, and the de¬
position was more uniform. (The surface of anode must be extensive)
The colour of the deposit dull grey, and somewhat rough, probably
owing to the air-bubbles formed during the process. The metal de¬
posited was exceedingly hard, being nearly equal to hardened steel.
When heated to cherry redness it became malleable, and as easy to
engrave upon as soft steel. The electrotype plates thus formed are
said to be very durable - far more so than copper, and hence their
importance in bank-note printing. The deposited iron is permanently
magnetic. Doubtless K. Klein will improve upon his present pro¬
cess in course of time, but so- far it appears to be a perfectly
practical process - at least, in -his hands - and the Russian Govern¬
ment have promptly turned the invention to account.
Petition.
Go tbe Commissioner of patents :
13our petitioner , THOMAS A. ED1SOU, a citizen of the United
States, residing and having hie post-office address at Dlewellyn
Park, Orange, Essex County, Me <>/ Jersey,
Prnfis tbat letters patent mas be granteb to btm for tbe improved PROCESS OP
DUPLICATING PHO HO GRAPH RECORDS
set fortb in tbe annereb specfttcation ; anb be berebg appoints jfraijlt X. S^er (IRegls*,
tratlon IRo. 560), of Eblson Xaboratorg, ©range, Hew 3erse», bis attorney, wltb full
power of substitution anb revocation, to prosecute tbls application, to mate altera*
tions anb amendments therein, to receive tbe patent, anb to transact all business In
tbe patent office connecteb therewith.
S P !J C in C A T1 0 !! ,
TO 7JHOM XT MAY CONCERN:-
BE IT KNOv/N that I, Thomas A. Edi¬
son, of blewellyn Park, Orange, in the County of Essex,
State of New Jersey, have invented certain improvements in
the Process of Duplicating Phonograph Records (Case No.
1,119), of which the ’following is a description:
My invent'd on relates to an improved process for
duplicating phonograph records from matrices . or molds, and
my object is to provide a process for the purpose wherein
the necessity is overaWe for making a large number of ori¬
ginal masters when a plurality of matrices' or molds of the
same selection requires tto be made, whereby 1 am enabled to
reduce tile expense of the \operati on. In carrying my inven¬
tion into effect 1 proceed Substantially as. f allows:
A suitable master record is first made on a record
ing machine having a specially coarse thread feed-screw, and
If the master is sufficiently perfect for the purpose, a
mold or matrix is made therefrom by any y/ell known process,
as, for example, that indicated in my patent, No. 713,209,
of November 11, 1902. The process by which this matrix or
mold is made is preferably one by whioh the matrix or mold
will be provided with a non- oxidizing record surfaoe, such
as gold or nickel, so that it will be very permanent. From
the matrix or mold thus made 1 obtain any desired number,
say a dozen or more, of duplicate records or submasters by
any suitable process. For example, a blank may be shaved
very true so as to fit- accurately within the matrix or
mold, and be then expanded into engagement with the record
surface of the matrix or mold by heat and pressure, as 1
(1)
I describe in my Said patent; or, instead, a molten wax-like
material may be cant in the matrix or mold, as 1 describe in
my patent, Ho. 607 ,662, of" February 5, 1901; or, finally,
the matrix or mold may be dipped in a suitable molten, co-
agulaDle, wax-like material, which forms a coagulated layer
of the desired thickness thereon, as described in patent,
Ho. 683,615, granted October 1, 1901, to Miller and Ayls-
worth. By whatever process that may be followed an accurate
subma3ter will be secured, the bore of 7/hich need not be
finished. 1 aim to secure submastb'rs in this Wy which
shall correspond accurately with masters now obtained by
recording in the .first instance thereon in special recording
machines; and, consequently, the original or main mold or
matrix should be much longer than the record which it, car¬
ries, and the pitch of the record groove therein should be
so selected that viien the submasters have contracted longi¬
tudinally, their pitch shall correspond with that now used
in masters made directly in recording machines. This latter
pitch, wl.th the materials now used, is ninety-eight and two-
thirds threads per inch, but the pitch will vary with the
composition employed and with the process followed, as to
temperature, manipulations etc.
Having obtained^ number of submasters in this
way which correspond accurately with masters as now obtained
r|^^r'Tfed:lre0tly °n the blan3£ in a 8uitable recording
machine ,^4-ma3cg--a-ttambcr of suhmrftthrHSr^^ sub¬
masters by any suitable process, for instance, those indi¬
cated in my patent, Ho. 713,209, above referred to, and from
these submolds I proceed to obtain duplicates in the usual
way, as indicated in the several patents to which atten¬
tion .has been directed. The duplicates so obtained, when
finished on the interior and ends, are commercially salable
duplicates, comparing favorably with those now secured in
the art from a matrix or mold made fro/n a master obtained
directly by recording in the first instance in a special
recording machine . These duplicates, when they reach their
normal temperature, will possess the standard pitch of
thread of one hundred per inch, and v/ill, therefore, ho
capable of effective use in standard reproducing machines
bof the phonograph type. (L
Having now described my 'invention, what I claim
as new therein and desire to secure by letters patent is
as follows:
‘.-X- 0.
y0' A process of making duplicate sound records, which
conai in first obtaining a suitable master having a very
eoarse pi^ch of r^°Pr,d groove, in forming a matrix or mold
therefrom.Vn .securing a plurality of submasters from the
matrix oj; mold so secured, in making a plurality of
submolds or suborn trices from the submasters, and in Becm
from the submolds\or submatricesAduplicate sound records of
standard pitch, substantially as and for the purposes set
forth.
2. A process of ma&Uig duplicate sound records, whioh|
consists in making an origiiml master record of abnormal
length and of abnormally coarseVLtch, in securing a main
matrix or mold therefrom, In obtalnS-if; a number of submas¬
ters from the main matrix or mold and\f less pitch, in se-.
curing a number of submatrioes or submold's, from the sub¬
masters, and in obWiS^ffro m the submat ricks or submolds
duplicate phonograph records of standard pitch /Wstantial-
ly.as set forth. ’ N,
(3)
trbis specification signeb anb witnesseb tbls
bap of
State Of Kow JerBey,
Count? Of Essex,
TIIOMAG A. EDI SO If . tbe above=itatneb
petitioner, being buls sworn, beposes anb sap3 tbat be is a citizen
of tbe United. States, and a resident of Llewellyn Park, Orange,
in the County of Essex and State of Hew Jersey;
tbat be peril? believes bimself to be tbe original, first anb sole inventor of tbe
IMPROVED PROCESS OF DUDL1CAT1HG PHONO GRAPH RECORDS
beserfbeb anb clafmeb in tbe annejeb specincntion ; tbat be boes not [mow anb boes
not believe tbat tbe same was ever Imown or useb bp others in tbe Vlnlteb States of
Hmerica before bis invention or biscoverp thereof ; or patenteb or bescribeb fit anp
prfnteb publication in tbe Ulniteb States of Hmerica or anp foreign couutrp before bis
invention or biscoverp thereof, or more than two pears prior to tbfs application ; or
in public use or on sale in tbe Ulniteb States for more than two pears prior to tbfs
application, anb tbat no application for patent upon safb invention bas been fileb bp
biin or bis legal representatives or assigns (it anp foreign countrp more than seven
months prior to tbe filing of tbis application.
Sworn to anb subscribeb before me tbis bap of dfensz' 190 3
2—200.
J Jj. ?| ^ Paper Nj2Lj.ItuJ.ac.ti an.
' application should glvo.tho serial number,
department of the Interior, ''[/>>
United States Patent Office,
Washington, d. c. itoaen'ber 'S;190'6. 1
Thomas A. Mis on,
Caro yrank T<. Hyor >
Alio on IicUioraiory,
6 range, How Jersoy.
U. S. PRTEHT OFFICE,
DEC 3 1903
M AiLE D.
uiication from the EXAMINER in charge of your application.
for Proa ties of rjupliisXti hg Phonograph Records, filed Hov. 3,19ns.
serial number 179,7.1(5.
. .Commissioner of Patents.
i This application has boon duly examined.
It ifi quits common to produo o an enlarged copy of an
original record. At tout ion is called /o the following patents:
/ r
Alison' b rlngllsh Patent ^1644 of 1878, Pic. £9, Graph. ,
I and
Ametjlfejr" "14,1895, -fSSG, P.lB .
It is held that, it cannot constitute pa tenth bio inven¬
tion to make' a "matris from such tin enlarged record aid by any of
the well known duplicating' processes produce a copy of the enlarg¬
ed record In material that would nqdessarily shrink and produce
a record sm 11 or’ than the' enlarged record but equal to, if pot’
larger, than the” original redord.
Tlie claims are rejected for rant of patentable invention,
in view of the'Vat3nt8 aited,’ and what applicant refers to in the
epeoif ibattaa as . being old ways of duplicating. -
UNITED STATES PATENT QPPIOE.
ThomaB A. Edison
Improved Process of Duplicating
Phonograph Records
Piled November 3, 1S03.
Serial No. ,179,716 ,
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS.
Sir: —
Replying to Offioe action of December
3, 1903, please amend the above entitled case as follows:
Claim 1, line 4, change "securing" to "molding"
Same claim, line 6, change "securing" to "mold¬
ing" .
Claim 2, line 4, change "obtaining" to "mold¬
ing". :
Same claim line 7, change "obtaining" to "mold¬
ing" . I
The claims are believed to be patentable over
the references for the following reasons. The invention
set forth in the claims is entirely different from anything
suggested in the references. The present invention re¬
lates entirely to the duplication of sound records by a
series of molding processes. The patents cited do not dis¬
close any molding processes but merely meohanical means
for securing copies of records. In both the patents the
vibrations are amplified in the duplicate, that is, they
are greater in the duplicate than in the original. In
applicant's method, there is no such amplification* In
both of the patents cited, the process of duplication des-
°0nsiBts of a Binsle stePi th*t is, the production
°fV directly from an ariginal by a mechanical connection
-1-
■between them. In the prooosses claimed, there are a
series of Btepe. Euthermore , in the said patents only-
one duplicate is made from the original, whereas in the
processes claimed a plurality of duplicates (sub-masters),
are obtained from the original and duplicates are then
obtained from the sub-masters, in each case, by forming
a matrix or mold and in molding therefrom. The Examiner
states that "it is quite pommon to produce an enlarged
copy of an original repord". According to applicant's
invention, no enlarged copy is produced. The first copy
(sub-master) is smaller than the original and the second
copy (duplicate record of standard pitch) is smaller than
the sub-master.
An allowance of the claims is respectfully
fe'cte'iclted }•,
Thomas A. Edison
By
His Attorney
Orange , Nev/ Jersey
June /C, 1904.
2—2G0.
DlV. 3S , Roor
tMmtnunitaUona eheuld be eddneeed pj «H« 7)»
United States Patent Office,
Ih“',AVaar‘“SUJ,.^, MumnwErA
Edison laboratory, JUU 7 1904
Orange, Haw jersey.
mailed.
Please find below a communication from, the EXAM HER in charge of your application,
far Process of implicating Ph<nograj>h Records, filod I-Tov. 3,1903,
#179,716 . •
R J, m&L:
This action is in response to the amendment filsd the
The claims, as amended, it is believed, define merely
duplicating by tho well toaown molding process, tho duplicate -y/
formed by tho process in applicant's patent, seby. 8*1 901, #667, 662,
(181-16) and it must be held that no invention can be displayed
in duplicating from a dupl icate instead of dupl ioating from tho '
original record, such matter mtom having been referred to in
patent to Edison, Sept, 11,1900 ,#657,587, (181-16).
The claims are rejected.
UNITED STATES PATENT 0PP1CE,
Thomas A, Edison
IMPROVED PROCESS OP DUPLICATING
PHONOGRAPH RECORDS
Piled November 3, 1903
Serial No. 179,716.
Room No.
379.
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS
SIR:-
Replying to Office action of July 7,
1904,. please amend the above entitled case as follows:
. • Page 1, rewrite the paragraph beginning - "My
invention", as follows:
My invention relates to an improved process for
) producing duplicate phonograph records from matrioes or
molds. Heretofore suoh reooidB have been produced by f
first making a suitable master, forming a matrix or
mold around Baid master, removing Baid master and then
molding the duplicates successively by means of said mold'
%iile it is sometimes possible to remove the master witi.
<| out injury from the mold so that it can be used for the
I production of another or other molds, it requires ex¬
treme oare and there is always danger of injury to the
surface of the master, whereby it becomes unfit for
further use. Inasmuch bb the delicate surface of the
mold thus produced almost inevitably becomes aor&iohed
or marred at sometime during continued use, the life
of the mold is limited and therefore the number of du¬
plicates whloh oan be produced from the mold is limited.
If one dQBires t4> obtain additional duplicates, it
will be necessary to construct another mold, and if the
master has been injured or destroyed it will, of course,
be neoeseary to produce anotjier master. This in many
cases will be impossible, because one may not be able
to secure the services of the person or persons who
produced the original master, their voices may have
changed, or other reasons may prevent the production
of a second master.
Furthermore, it frequently happens that
there is a great demand for a particular selection which
it is impossible to fill by the production of dupli¬
cates from a single mold, because of the time necessar¬
ily consumed in producing each dvplioate. Xn order ,
therefore, to overcome these difficulties, it has been
the practice in this art to produce several master re¬
cords at the same time which shall be as nearly alike
as possible, so that a plurality of molds can be pro¬
duced, one from each master. This prooess is objection¬
able, however, because the suspense of producing master
records of artistic quality is very great, requiring
a large number of trials, sinoe the slightest blast or
other flaw in the reoord necessitates the discarding
thereof. Furthermore, it is impossible to produoe two
masters which are exactly alike.
The object of the present invention is a
process whereby a praotioally unlimited number of sound
records can be produced, each of whioh is a duplicate
of a single master j whereby any desired number of mold*
oan be produoed at any time for molding said records;
whereby any desired number of exaotly similar duplicate
V V
\
/ records can tie molded simultaneously; and whereby a
1 permanent and enduring reoord of the master may he ob-
| ( tained and preserved for the /.future production of such
/ molds and records. In oarrying my invention into ef-
I feet, 1 proceed substantially as follov/s :
1 Page Z, line 26, cancel - "I make a number of
submolds or matrices of", arid insert in place thereof —
Sthe main matrix or mold may be filed away. It will not
\be required for further use during the life of the sub-
jmolds whose production 1 will now describe, but will be
/ available at any future time for the production of
j additional submasters from which submolds may be made.
\The submoldB or fggtKig,es are produced from -
Page 5, insert after line 7 the following:
It is obvious that according to my invention the
number of duplicate phonograph records which com be
obtained from a single master is multiplied. That 1b to
say, suppose that the life of eaoh mold is limited to
one thousand operations - then, according to the methods
heretofore known, we oan produce only one thousand
duplicate copies of the original master, assuming the
same to have been destroyed in making the molds. This
is the limit to the number of duplicates y/hich oan be
produoed from the master in question and therse duplicates
can only be produoed suooessiyely. Aooording to my in¬
vention, hov/ever, it will be possible to produoe a
thousand Bub-masters from the main mold,to produce a sub*,
mold from eaoh sub-master, thereby obtaining a thousand
sub-molds, and then produoe from these subBsubdds one
million duplicate sound records, eaoh of which is a copy
3.
V
1/
I
of the original master, and in the some space of time
that one thousand records were formerly produced.
Another advantage of my invention is that the
molding of the sub-masters can be done with great care
by the most skillful workmen so that the main mold will
not bo injured and the molding from the sub-molds oan be!
done very rapidly, without much care, or by comparative#
unskilled persons, because a sub-mold oan be replaced
at any time without very great expense.
rcAf .
Rewrite the claims as follows: V''
*’(f7 ^ **'*
1. The process of multiplying sound! records, which
consists in producing a suitable master1, forming a
matrix or mold therefrom,, molding a plurality of sub¬
masters from said mold) forming a sub-matrix or sub- t' ■
mold from each of said sub-masters and then molding
duplicate sound records from each of said sub-matrices
or sub-molds, whereby a plurality of duplicate sound
records can be obtained simultaneously and the produc¬
tion thereof is not limited by the life of the molds
innwhich they are formed, substantially as set forth.
2, The procesls of multiplying sound records, which
consists in prodttcung a suitable master having a record
groove of abnormally coarse pitch, forming a matrix of
moiaitherefEcm^mcllsins a '.plurality of sub-masterB of
smaller pitch than BVid master from said mold, forming
a sub-matrix or sub-riold from each of said sub-masters
and then molding duplicate sound recordB of standard Aid
pitch from each of said sub-matrices or sub-molds, ^
whereby a plurality of ^duplicate sound records oan be iH
obtained simultaneouslyNand the production thereof is
not limited by the life \f the molds in which they are
formed, substantially as fcet forth.
C&**- Sj ‘>1L0Cs%5>
REMARKS
This case haB been amended in order to more
| clearly set forth the patentable novelty of the invention.
ffihe invention is a process of multiplying sound
reoorda, and as explained in the specification, the inven¬
tion makes it possible to obtain, for example, a million
duplicate secordB within the same period of time that a
4.
thousand records ware formerly produced, assuming that
the master is destroyed in making the mold. There 1b no
suggestion in the prior art of any means by which this
result can be accomplished.
In Edison Patent Eo. 657,527 cited, a metallic
duplicate is produced by electro-deposition upon the in¬
terior of a matrix in order that copies may be made there¬
from by mechanical means, and on account of the hardnesB
or durability of the metal, the number of copies whioh
can be made is increased. J.f the metallic record is con¬
sidered to be the equivalent of the sub-master of the pres*
ent application, the disclosure of the patent fails as a
reference, because only one such copy is produced, where¬
as according to the present invention as described and claim¬
ed a plurality of sub-masters are produced and it is only
by virtue of this fact that a multiplication of the final
copies is obtained.
Furthermore, in the reference the metallic copy
is not produced by molding but by electro-deposition and
it is neoessary th destroy the matrix in order to obtain
the copy. Therefore, it is impossible to obtain a plural¬
ity of sub-masters by any means disclosed in this patent.
The remaining reference failB to anticipate the
claims since it does not disclose any means for multiply¬
ing copies. In eaoh case the duplicate must be produced
successively and their production is limited by the life
of the mold in which they are formed.
Applicant's invention is now clearly set forth
and differentiated from the prior art in the specifica¬
tion and claims.
5.
The claims are -believed to -be patentable for
the reasons sot forth, and an allowance of the oase is
recpooti'ully solicited.
THOMAS A. -EDISON
Hie Attorney.
Orange, Now Jersey
June v 1905 .
2-260.
D i v - 2>5 Room _ 3.7 9
DEPARTMENT 0
Paper No. . J *
United States Patent Office,
Thomas A. jtdison,
Onrg tfnwifc % hyer,
ddisori he. bora to ry ,
Orange ,!few J ora ey.
■ c„ July 8l)t.lS06.
I S. POTT OFFICE ■
JUL 25 1905
MAILED.
p Please find below a communication from the EXAMINER in charge of your application ,
for Prpeosa of implicating Phonog-aph Re oorit*, filed JTov. 3,
..1903 ,ao rial number 179,71'j.
&.J,
_ _ _ . _ Commissionerjffiatmt?.
Tills act Ion is in response to the 'amendment filed tho
24th' ultimo.
Y/hat urr Humt terms the "aub mo. st or" Is merely the
usual duplicate record that is commonly sold ux>on the market.
Ap pllo ant desires a patent for duplioating or multiplying these'
oommonly sold duplioate records.
As has been before stated, there san be no in-ventlon
displayed in multiplying or duplioating a dunlloate in stead of
duplioating an| original and the claims are aooordlngly. rejected
for want of invention in view of the patents before cited.
1
UNITED STATES PATENT OPJiTCE,
Thomas A. Edison )
I IMPROVED PROCESS OP DUPLICAT- )
ING PHONOGRAPH RECORDS
I Eiled November 3, 1903
I Serial No. 179,716
) Room No. 379
i
HONORABLE COKHJ SSI ONER OP PATENTS:
SI R ;
Replying to Office action of
July 25th, 1905, a reconsideration is respectfully re¬
quested. The Examiner is mistaken when he states that
the element termed by applicant the "sub-master" is merely
the usual duplicate record that is sold upon the market
As a matter of fact the sub-master is the device from which
the mold is made by which the duplicates are afterwards pro
duced. These sub-masters are never sold and in fact
would be useless for purposes of reproduction in an ordinarj)
phonograph because the pitch of the record groove does not
correspond with the pitch of the feed screw.
The Examiner holds that there is no invention in
duplicating a duplicate instead of duplicating an original.
It should be noted, however, that the claims are limited
to molding a plurality of sub-masters from a single mold,
forming a sub-matrix from eaoh of said sub-masters, and
then molding duplicate sound recordB from each of said
sub-matrices. That is, the process provides for a
multiplication of copies which would not be obtained by merj
ly duplicating a duplicate. Eurthermore there would be
no use of this invention in merely duplicating one of the
commonly sold duplicate; records, beoause one must take a
1.
plurality of identical reoords and make a mold from each
of the said reoords, and produce duplicate records from
each of these molds. As long as one confines himself to
the use of one mold for producing each hind of record,
there is no multiplication of copies in the sense in which
this word is used in the present application.
The claims appear to he entirely novel and an
allowance thereof is therefore respectfully solicited.
Orange, New Jersey
July f ; 1906 .
THOMAS A. NMSON
By
his attorney .
2.
Paper No . <
ins rc8pe^rt?g\5l^
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
United States Patent Office,
WASHINGTON,!
ThoiKHt, A. Udison,
oaro Pranft h, J)ynr,
Miaou Laboratory,
Orung» ,11.3V'
■ 'm OFFICE,.
XSjL Ll
* JUL 27
M A I L E ' V^l
1%
Plcascfitid below ticominiuiicatiori front the -EXAMINER- in charge, of ycturapplicatioTi^ t
for Procsee of implicating Phone^aph Records* filed -ffowi
'■$J, (ML-
This notion is Itt: response v,o the argument f J.l*d the
loth in* twit .
The examiner has carefully con&idered applicant's Argu¬
ment and has noted that applicant hue argued that the sub-masters
are of a character unanitedfor use in practical operation ia
reproducing, hut it is also noted, that neither of the claims define
this characteristic of the sub-musters, nor are the sub-masters
defined in the claims in any way to differentiate them from dupli¬
cates made in regular duplicate record material. Whether a
plurality of sub-masters or duplicates are made and then duplicates
made from the plurality of sub-wasters, is immaterial in a patentable
whether one or a plurality be made raises the question of
degree only . As the claims 'Are now-drawn ,the_ former ground of"
rejection la believed to be rertinent end it ie repeated and made
final . " . ' \ 'll *
A drawing. illustrating the alleged invention in requested
to bo filed.
TOUTED STATES PATENT OFFICE.
ThoraaB A. Edison )
IMPROVED PROCESS OP DUPLICATING)
PHONOGRAPH RECORDS :
Piled November 3rd, 1903 •
Serial No. 179,716 \
Room No. 379
Honorable CommiBsioner of Patents,
Sir : —
In response to Office]
letter of July 27th, 1906, pleaBe amend as follows:
Cancel claim 2 and substitute the following:
2. The prooess of multiplying Bound recordB,
whioh o ons is ts in producing a suitable master having a
record groove of abnormally coarse pitch, forming a
matrix or mold therefrom, molding from said matrix or mold
i plurality of sub-masters of less pitch than that of
said master, forming a sub-matrix or sub-mold from each
of said sub-masters, and then molding from said sub-ma¬
trices or sub-molds duplicate sound records of standard
pitch, which is lass than jrhat of the sub-masters, whereby
a plurality of duplicate Bound records can be obtained
simultaneously from the same master and the production
thereof is not limited to the life of the molds in whioh
they are directly formed, substantially as set forth.
1.
3. The process of multiplying sound records,
which o one is t a in producing a suitable master of ooarse
pitch, forming a matrix or mold therefrom of the same pitoh,
molding a plurality of sub-maBters from said mold of a
smaller pitch, forming a sub-matrix or sub-mold from each oi
said sub-masters and of the same pitch, and then molding
duplicate sound records of a still smaller pitch from each
of said sub-matrices or sub-moldB, whereby a plurality of
duplicate sound records can be obtained simultaneously
and the production thereof is not limited by the life of
the mold in which they are formed, substantially as set
forth.
REMARKS .
The above claims have been formulated in view
of the Examiner's action of July 27, 1906, and they are
thought to embody the suggestions contained therein.
It is hoped that op reconsideration, claim 1, whioh
applicant , for the reasons repeatedly set forth heretofore,
believes to be patentable, may also be allowed.
It is requested that the Examiner point cut aB
definitely as he can, the nature of the drawing which he
thinks should be filed in this case. It is not clear to
applicant hov; the oase could be properly illustrated by
meanB of a drav/ing.
Respeotfully submitted.
THOMAS A. EDISON
By
/ <f
Hie Attorney.
Orange, New Jersey
April /<£ 1907.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
United States Patent Office,
WASHINGTON, D. C., May J, .i p07.
Thomus A. Sdicon,
Oare Branls ft, Dyer*
Edison laboratory.
Orange, Hew Jersey
U, S. PATE!!? mi
MAT 1 1907
MAILED.
Plcaiio find below a communication from the EXAMINER in charge of your application,
for Process of Duplicating Phonograph Records, filed Hoy. 3,
1903, serial number 170,710, . *
&J,
?his action is responsive to the amendment filed April
A diagram drawn in principle like that shown in patent
of Hoyt, at a!., Jan, 8,1906, ■ "#908*848, (181-17), it is believed,
would properly illustrate the steps of the present alleged invention
!Tho examiner has again carefully considered the claim as
formerly present edfend has carefully considered the two elates
presented by the onendment noted above .
The examiner1 can see nothing of patentable invention
however, in applicant's claimed process for reasons before stated
and repeated and accordingly the claims must be rejected .
TOUTED STATES PATENT OPPICB.
Thomas A. Edison,
S' :
Room No. 379.
Piled November 3, 1903,
Serial No. 179,716.
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS,
SIR;-
Replying to Office action of May 1,
1907, a drawing has been filed in accordance with the
Examiner's requirement.
It is requested that the specification be amended
as follows
After the matter inserted after line 7 of page
3 by amendment of June 24, 1905, insert the following': -
Reference is hereby made to the accompanying;
drawing which shows diagi-arnmatically a multiplication of
duplicate sound reoords (standard pitch) from a single
master record, according to the process herein describe^
and claimed. -
REMARKS.
The specification fully sets forth the advantages
of the present invention over the prior art, and the '
olaimB are limited to the speoifio steps which are neces¬
sary to secure such advantages. The process claimed ap¬
pears to be clearly novel, and its advantages are so great
and numerous that their realization is believed to involve
patentable invention.
Orange, N.J.
November 1907 .
Pinal notion is requested.
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS A. EDISON,
By <
V... .23... Room - 379 J.HMT
Rej.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
United States Patent Office,
WASHINGTON, D. C., Deo. 3^907,
Thomas A. Edison,
Care Frank L, Dyer,
Edison Laboratory,
Orange,}?. J.
Please find below a communication from, tho EXAMINER in charge of your application,
for Process of Duplicating Phonograph Records, filed )Jov. 3 t 903
serial number 179,716 . »
Commissioner of Patents,
This action is in response to the amendment filed the 15th
ultimo.
The examiner has very carefully considered this case again
hut oan see no reason for changing the former ruling with
reference to the rejection of the claims and accordingly said
claims must he again and finally rejected in view of the
former grounds of rejection .
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE
Thomas A. Edison )
)
IMPROVED PROCESS OE DUPLICATING )
PHONOGRAPH RECORDS )
)
Filed November 3, 1903 )
Serial No. 179,716 )
Room No . 379
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS:
SIR:
I hereby appeal to the Examiners- in-
Chief from the decision of the principal Examiner in the
matter of my application for Letters Patent for an IMPROVED
PROCESS OF DUPLICATING PHONOGRAPH RECORDS, filed November
3, 1903, serial No. 179,716, which on the third day of
December, 1907 was rejected for the second time. The follow¬
ing are the points of the decision upon which the appeal is
taken:
1. The Examiner erred in rejecting the claims.
2. The Examiner erred in holding the olaims to be
without patentable novelty.
An oral hearing is requested.
Very respectfully,
THOMAS A. EDISON
^ ^ _
His Attorney.
Orange, New Jersey
November 28th, 1908.
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OPPICE .
Application of
Thomas A. Edison, for
Prooeas of Duplicating
Phonograph Records,
Piled Not. 3,1903,
Serial Ntunber 179,716 .
” U, S, PATENT OFFICE,
DEC 8 1908
} MAILED.
) 1 - J
) Before the Hon. Board of
) Examiners-in-Chief.
)
} f-r- ' . ■...
This.- is an answer to an appeal from the final rejeotion
of claims 1, 2 and 3 of this case .
1. The process of multiplying sound records, whioh consists
in producing a suitable master, forming a matrix or mold therefrom,
molding a plurality of sub-masters from said mold, forming a
sub-matrix, or sub-mold from each of said sub-masters, and then
molding duplicate sound records from each of said sub-matrices
or sub-molds, whereby a plurality of duplicate sound reoords can
be obtained simultaneously 'and the production therdof is not
limited by the life of the molds in whioh they are formed, substan¬
tially as set forth .
2. The process of multiplying sound records, which con¬
sists in producing a suitable roaster having a record groove of
abnormally coarse pitch, forming a matrix or mold therefrom,
molding from said matrix or mold a plurality of sub-masters of
leas pitch than that of said master, forming a Bub-matrix or sub¬
mold from each of said sub-raa3ters, and then molding from said sub-
matrices or Bub-molds duplioate sound reoords of standard pitch,
which is less than that of the sub-madt masters, whereby a
plurality of duplioate sound records can be obtained simultaneous¬
ly from the same master and the production thereof is not limited
to the life of the molds in which they are directly formed,
substantially as set forth .
3. The prooess of multiplying sound records, whioh con¬
sists in producing a suitable master of coarse pitoh, forming a
matrix or mold therefrom of the same pitoh, molding apjbbtality
of., sub-masters from, said . mold of. a ...smaller .pitoh, forming a sub-
matrix or sub-mold from eaoh of said sub-masters and of the
same pitch, and then molding- duplioate Bound records of a still
smaller pitch from each of said sub-matrices or sub-molds,
whereby a plurality of duplioate sound reoords can be obtained
simultaneously and the production thereof is not limited by
the life of the mold in whioh they are formed , substantially
as set forth .
The references relied upon are .patents to,.
Edison, Feb. 5, 1901 ,#667, 662, (181-16);
Edison, Sept. 11, 1900, #657, 527, (181-16.) i
Arne t, May 14,1895, #539,212,(181-16).
It is a matter of common knowledge that matrix molds for
molding expansible and oontraotible material are made larger
than the molded article is intended to "be so that the molded
artiole when contracted after molding will be of the desired size.
This custom is indicated in this art by the speoification and
claim 1 of Edison's patent #667,662. The article produced by
the process of this patent is what applicant terms his sub-master
and in so far as the claimed devices are concerned, applicant ' s
j sub-master is nothing more than the commercial duplicate
j record commonly sold in the market .
V7hat applicant has dons in performing the process of
the claims is merely to have duplicated by any well known molding
process the product of the above noted patented process, i.e., the
commercial phonograph record produced thereby.
The examiner has held that no invention can be display¬
ed in duplicating a duplicate by any well known molding process
instead of duplicating the original .
It is a matter of common knowledge in the art that
commercial records such as are made by the process in patent
#667,662, or any other of the well known molding processes,
are bought and copied by any of the known copying processes,
such as by electroplating the record to form a matrix and then
molding from the matrix to form duplicates. One way of
duplicating from a duplicate 1b disclosed in patent of Edison,
#657,527. An enlarged record is disclosed in Amet cited from
v/hioh duplicates of normal size may be made .
TSfhether a plurality of sub-matrices be produced or but
one seems to be immaterial in SO far as the patentability of the
claimed subject matter be concerned, for the plurality of sub-
masters constitute nothing more than a plurality of commercial
records and certainly no invention could be displayed in making
oopies by the well kijown molding process of a plurality of
#179,716-
•3.
ocmuueroial duplicates instead of making oopiea from a eingle
commercial duplicate .
Respectfully submitted:
De^embjer 8,1908.
Examiner, Division XXIII
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
United States Patent Office,
WASHINGTON, D. C.,
The case of
RSC; c
. ' 19°r
^?X}*°-/7?,7U ‘ w111 be heard ^ {Examiners- in-Chief
on the j^f day rt-'tyyitviajb . 190 7
It i3 the ^OZ-i5/^oase on the assignment for that day.
The hearings will commence at ° ' olook, and as soon as
the argument in one oase is concluded the succeeding case will
be taken up.
If any party, or his attorney, shall not appear when the
oase is called, his right to an oral hearing will be regarded
as waived. ~
The time allowed for arguments is as follows:
Ex parte oases, thirty minutes;
Motions, thirty minutes, each side;
Interference appeals, final hearing, one hour each side.
By special leave, obtained before the argument is commenced,
the time may be extended.
The appellant shall have the right to open and conclude in
interference cases, and in such oase a full and fair opening
must be made .
Briefs in interference appeals must be filed in aooordanoe
with the provisions of Rule 147.
Respectfully,.
/
IN THE IJin TED STATES PATENT OPE ICE
ThomaB A. EdiBon
PROCESS OP DUPLICATING
PHONOGRAPH RECORDS
Piled Not. 3, 1903
Serial No. 179,716
briep por appellant
This is an appeal from the final rejection of
Claims 1, 2 and 3 of this oase.
)
j
) Before the Honorable Board
: of Examiners-in-Chief
. . . 1- The process of multiplying sound records,
whioh consists in producing a suitable master, forming a
matrix or mold therefrom, molding a plurality of sub-
masters from said mold, forming a sub-matrix or sub-mold
from eaoh of said sub-maBters, and then molding duplioate
sound records from each of said sub-matriceB or sub-moldB.
whereby a plurality of duplicate sound reoords oan be ob¬
tained simultaneously and the production thereof is not
limited by the life of the molds in whioh they are formed,
substantially as set forth.
. . , 2. The process of multiplying sound reoords.
which consists in producing a suitable master having a
record groove of abnormally coarse pitoh, forming a
matrix or mold therefrom, molding from said matrix or
mold a plurality of sub-masters of less pitoh than that
of said master, forming a submatrix or Bub-mold from eaoh
of said Bub-masters, and then molding from said sub-
ra?irCoeB,.?r, sub-molds duplicate sound reoords of standard
pitch, whioh is less than that of the sub-maBters, where¬
by a plurality of duplicate sound reoords can be obtained
simultaneously from the same master and the production
thereof is not limited to the life of the molds in whioh
they are direotly formed, substantially as set forth.
. . . 5» The process of multiplying sound records,
consists in producing a suitable master of coarse
f0mins a matrix or mold therefrom of the same
pitch, molding a plurality of sub-masters from said mold
of a smaller pitoh, forming a sub-matrix or sub-mold
(1)
from eaoh of said sub-masters and of the same pitch, and
then molding duplioate sound records of a still smaller
pitch from eaoh of said suh-matrioes or Bub-molds, where¬
by a plurality of duplicate Bound reoords can be obtained
simultaneously and the production thereof is not limited
by; the life of the mold in which they are formed, sub¬
stantially as set forth.
The references relied upon are patents to
hdison, February 5, 1901 Ho. 667,6 62, (181-16);
Edison, September 11, i960, Ho. 657,527, (181-I6);
Amet, May 14, 1895, Ko. 539,212, USl-lfc).
This invention consists in a process by which
molded duplicate phonograph records may be commercially
produced in large numbers, and are so produced at the
works of the appellant. The invention lies broadly in
the provision of steps in the prooess of manufacturing
duplicates on a large scale, whereby a rapid multiplica¬
tion of the original record is achieved. These; steps -are
reforrod to in the first of the claims, for example, where
after stating that a suitable master record is produced
and a matrix or mold formed therefrom, it is then stated
that a plurality of sub-masters are molded from said mold
and a sub-matrix or sub-mold is formed from eaoh of said
sub-masterB. The duplioate sound records which form the
final product of the prooess are molded from eaoh of the
Bub-matrices.
Previous to appellant’s invention, on which
this application was filed Hovember 3, 1903, there was in
existence no process by which molded phonograph records
might be multiplied. When it was deBired to reoord, for
example, a particular song and produce commercial dupli¬
cates of the same, the singer was employed to produce a
master reoord. That is to say, he sang into the reoord-
(2)
ing phonograph, and after probably a large number of trials
succeeded in producing a record sufficiently perfect.
From this record a matrix or mold was formed by an electro¬
plating process, the matrix carrying the sound record in
negative on its bore. The master record waa removed from
the matrix so formed und the duplicate sound records were
made from the matrix, one after the other, by some one
of the then well known processes of molding sound recordB,
referred to in the specification of this application;
Those processes were casting molten wax-like material
on the interior surface of the matrix, or dipping the
matrix into the molten material and removing it bo that
a sufficient quantity of the material adhered to the bore
of the matrix, or placing a blank sound record of a some¬
what smaller diameter than the matrix inside the same,
heating it until it became somewhat plastio, and then ex¬
panding it as by means of an expanding mandrel into con¬
tact with the surface of the matrix. By whatever of
those means was employed, the sound record appearing in
relief on the bore of the ma.trix was impressed or formed
on the exterior surface of the duplicate record. The
latter was then subjected to cold sufficient to contract
it out of contact with the record surfaoe of the matrix
when it was removed.
This method was all very v/ell for a compara¬
tively small production of commercial duplicate records,
but it was limited as to the two commercially important
attributes of rapidity of production and quantity of
records which could be produced. That is to say, the
life of the matrix from which all these duplicate records
were made wub limited. It might, for example, only be
possible to produce a thousand perfect records from the
matrix before it became injured or otherwise unfit for a
further production of duplicate records. When this
happened, it was, of course, impossible to further pro¬
ceed with the duplication of that particular record, and
the only way to obtain more records would be for the
Binger to sing additional timeB into the rocording phono¬
graph to produoe other perfect master records from whioh
matrices or molds were formed, and ffom these additional
duplicates could be molded. Of course, it is obvious
that this procedure was open to various grave defects. It
was difficult for the 3inger or other performer to make
a succession of records sufficiently nearly alike. A
number of trials were always necessary to produce a single
good record, and in the time required to produce say five
or ten good records, the singer's voice would be quite apt
to deteriorate bo that his later efforts were not as .
good as- the firBt. While it may be urged that a number
of matrices or molds might be formed from one perfect
master record by the contraction and removal of the master
mold from the first matrix and the formation of subsequent
molds therefrom, it may be stated that there is always
danger of injury to the surface of the master in removing
it from the matrix, and that it is extremely difficult to
successfully remove it from the mold in perfect condition.
In spite of the disadvantages of having each performer
make .a; number of master records for each Bong or perform¬
ance which was to be recorded, this practice was followed
at appellant's phonograph works and all other workB where
molded phonograph reoordB were produced commercially prior
to the invention under discussion. At this time in 1<?03
(4)
it was found sufficient at the Edison phonograph works to
have each performer make five or six records of each piece.
About this time, however, the demand for commercial phono¬
graph records grew enormously. A large number of dupli¬
cate records had periodically to be produced in a short
time, since new selections are put on the market once
every month. In this limited time, it was impossible to
make a sufficient number of duplicates from five or six
master records, and at times, as many as even thirty-five
original records had to be produced by the performer- of a
certain popular selection in order to meet the orders for
that record. This was, of course, such a had commercial
situation as demanded a remedy, and appellant's invention
resulted. This invention consisted in the multiplication
of a single perfect master record hy which an indefinite
number of good duplicate records might be produced. TKhere,
in the prior art, no one had thought of any other plan thar
to form duplicates from the original record, Mr. Edison
molded a plurality of perfect copies of the original master
record and made duplicates from each one of these perfect
copies or sub-masters. The invention consisted in a plan
which made commercially feasible the multiplication of
records from the original, whereas, formerly there had
been but a painful addition. The sub-masters constituted
the multiplying element whereby a product instead of a
mere sum of duplicate reoordB was achieved.
This result is not even hinted at in the prior
art. Patent to Edison 667,662 merely shows one of the
processes known at the date of tho present invention, for
forming duplicates from an original record. This, or an
(?)
analogoua process is the one which was used hy appellant
prior to his present invention, and upon which the present
invention is a very valuable improvement in the method of
commercial production on a large Beale.
The Examiner has stated that no invention can be
displayed in duplicating a duplicate by any v/oll known
molding process instead of duplicating the original, and
he has further stated "That whether a plurality of sub¬
matrices be produced or but one seems to be immaterial in
so far as the patentability of the claimed subject matter
be concerned, for the plurality of sub-xaa3tero constitute
nothing more than a plurality of commercial records and
certainly no invention could be displayed in making copies
by the well known molding process of a plurality of com¬
mercial duplicates instead of making copies from a single
commercial duplicate." It would seem that by this lan¬
guage the Examiner has shown his entire non-conception of
the invention in issue. It is by molding a plurality of
sub-masters from a single mold, forming a sub-matrix from
each of said sub-masters, and then molding duplicate sound
records from each of said sub-matrices that multiplica¬
tion of copieB is achieved, which would not be obtained
by merely duplicating a duplicate. That is, the gist
of appellant's invention in its broader form, which is
claimed in Claim 1, ifl, this molding of a plurality of
sub-masterB from a single mold. This is the step in the
process the provision of which made possible the pres¬
ent tremendous production of commercial duplic at e 1 ;pho -
nograph records. This iB more than a change in degree.
Further, that the step was not an abvious one is shown by
the fact that for a considerable length of time after the
(6)
business of the Edison phonograph works had grown to such
an extent, tend, the production of a large number of dupli¬
cate records in a limited time was necessary, the method
of increasing the production by increasing the number of
master records was followed with ito consequent imperfec¬
tions, annoyances and expense, and no other method was seer
to be practicable in spite of the obvious necessity for
the change. This is also true of all the other manufactur¬
ers and inventors at this time, none of whom had conceived
any processes of duplication other than the process by
mechanical copying, such as is disclosed in the patent to
Amet in the record, and the processes of molding dupli¬
cates from the original record, such as that disclosed in
patent 667,662 in the record.
The other references brought forward by the Ex¬
aminer do not seem to strengthen his position in assert¬
ing the non-patentability of the present invention. Pat¬
ent to Edison 657,527 merely provides for the making from
an original record of a single metallic duplicate by
electro-deposition upon the interior of a matrix, in order
that copies may be made therefrom by mechanical means, anc
on acoount of the hardness or durability of the metal, the
number of copies which can be made thereby increased.
That is to say, for an original record formed of a wax¬
like or a metallic soap composition, a metallio positive
record 1b substituted. To be sure, as the Examiner states,
this shows the idea of making duplicates from a duplicate
record, but it further shows that appellant's invention
involves muoh more than merely duplicating a duplicate,
since appellant's invention involves the feature of multi¬
plication of the molded records, which is not hinted at,
(7)
of courBO, in the patent 657,572 to Edison. In that
patent, only one metallic copy 1b produoed from the origi¬
nal record, wheroaB, according to the present invention as
deBorihod and claimed, a plurality of suh-maaterB are pro¬
duced hy virtue of whioh fact a multiplication of the final
copieB iB obtained. It 1b impossible to obtain a plurality
of Bub-masters by any means disclosed in patent 657,527,
since the metallic copy is produoed, not by molding, but
by electro-deposition, and it is necessary to destroy the
matrix in order to obtain the copy. In patent 657,527,
the matrix carrying the record in relief on ItB bore was
preferably made of copper, and a metallic master or posi¬
tive record was formed therefrom perferably by depositing
silver upon the surface of the copper matrix carrying the
record, whereupon the oopper matrix waB dissolved away
from the silver deposit by treatment with hydroohloric
acid or other solvent of copper which does not affect
silver. Patent to Amet 539,212, whioh is the other refer¬
ence in the case, merely discloses the fact that it is old
to obtain copies of an original record by a mechanioal pro¬
cess, the movements of a stylus whioh tracks the record
groove of the original record being oonveyed by a system
of linkages to a recording stylus whioh travels over a
rotating phonograph blank. By this meanB, a oopy of the
original record 1b made, which copy iB Bomewhat larger
than the original record, since the movement of the stylus
traveling over the original record is amplified somewhat
in the link connections therefrom by whioh the recording
stylus traveling over the blank iB actuated. ThiB, of
course, has no bearing on the broad question involved in
Claim 1 of this application, which concerns only the
(8)
patentability of the process of multiplication involving
the process steps which have been referred to.
It is to be noted that a phonograph record oast
or expanded in a mold, and whioh is shrunk slightly radial¬
ly after its formation in the mold to free it from the sur-
faoe of the mold, also shrinks to some extent longitudinal¬
ly. Therefore, a duplicate Bound record having Bhrunk to
Borne extent longitudinally, haB a finer pitch or a greater
number of threads per inch than the original record from
which it was made. Appellant's invention contemplated the
formation of duplioate sound records, the final produot of
the commercial process having the same pitch as the records
previously on the market, whioh would allow them to be
played upon the standard phonographs then on the market.
This meant that the duplicates should have a standard
pitch of 100 threadB to the inch. ThiB necessitated the
Bub-masters from which the duplioate records v/ere to be
formed having a pitch somewhat coarser than 100 threads to
the inch, and further, that the original master record
should be made on a recording machine having a still coarB-
or pitoh. It results from thiB that the sub-masters pro¬
duced in appellant's prooesB are not the ordinary com¬
mercial duplioate records. They would be unfit for ubo
as duplicate records commercially, beoause they are formed
with a pitoh of 98-2/3 threads per inoh, whereaB, the
commercial phonographs on which they would be played have
a pitoh of 100 threads per inoh, which would result in a
very faulty reproduction Bhould it be attempted to repro¬
duce from such a master on an ordinary 100 thread phono¬
graph. The reproducing stylus would not properly and ao-
(9)
eurately track the record groove, hut would jump from one
groove to another and would otherwise fail to properly re¬
produce so that a confusion of sound would result. In
this connection it should be noted that the statement of
the Examiner on page 2 of the Examiner's Statement in
this case is incorrect, namely, that "it is a matter of
common knowledge in the art that commercial records such
as are made by the process in patent No. 667,662, or any
other of the well known molding processes, are bought and
copied by any of the known copying processes, such as by
electro-plating the record to form a matrix and then mold¬
ing from the matrix to form duplicates." Of course, as
has been explained, this is inaarcact, since if any com¬
mercial record were bought and copied by forming a matrix
and then molding therefrom to form duplicates, the latter
would have a pitch materially finer than 100 threadB to
the inch, so that duplicates so formed would be valueless
for reproduction on the phonographs in general use all
over the country.
Claims 2 and 3 under consideration, have the
limitation which is not found in Claim 1, that the master
has a record groove of abnormally coarse pitch from which
a matrix of the same pitch is formed, while the sub-maBter
molded therefrom and the sub-matrix formed from the sub-
master have a lesB pitch, and the duplicates formed from
the various sub-matrices have a Btill less pitch, whioh
is the standard pitch of commercial phonographs. IhiB
feature of these clalmB is entirely novel, and is thought
to even more clearly distinguish these claimB from the
prior art than do the limitatipnB of Claim 1. In practice,
duplicate sound records having 100 threads to the inch
(10)
are formed from Bub-masters and Bub-matrioeB having 98-2/3
threads to the inoh, these suh-masterB in turn having been
molded from an original matrix having 97-l/ 3 threads per
inch. The discovery of these proper pitches involved con¬
siderable research and Investigation on the part of appell¬
ant, and it is only by the use of the principle involved
that commercially successful duplicates are formed by
this prooesB. There iB nothing in the record to rebut
the novelty of thiB 3tep of the process. The Examiner
Btates in his statement that an enlarged reoord is dis¬
closed in Amet, from which duplioateB of normal size may
be made. That is to say, in Amet an enlarged copy of the
original record is made by mechanical raeanB, and the Ex¬
aminer states that copies of this latter record of normal
size might be made. This is, however, an entirely differ¬
ent thing from appellant's process, in which the sub-mast«r
is smaller than the master which is the original reoord,
and the duplicate is smaller than the sub-master. The
process suggested by the Examiner from the Amet patent iB
entirely different from appellant's process and would not
suggest in the slightest appellant's process.
Among the advantages accruing from appellant's
present invention, it may be mentioned that the sub-mas¬
ters are formed from the original mold by a slow and care¬
ful procesB by a trained orew of men, whereby sub-masters
of great perfection are obtained, the duplicate records
being formed from the Bub-matrioes by a different prooess
by less skilled men, by which commercial duplicate reoord 3
are produoed with groat rapidity and of as great perfect! an
aB is feasible in commerce. By means of the procesB used
for the formation of the sub-maBters and the care taken
(11)
and time consumed in the making thereof, a copy of the
original record of great perfection is made. This would
not do for Bale commercially, hecauBe records so formed
would "be too expensive, hut they make excellent masters
from which the commercial duplicates are molded.
RESUME
Appellant is the first in the art to mold dupli¬
cate sound records hy a process which provides for a multi¬
plication of copies, which would not he obtained hy merely
duplicating a duplicate. This is a process of the great¬
est commercial importance and usefulness. Invention is
involved because steps are added to the process which were
not suggested hy anything known to the art prior to this
time, and which steps constitute more than .the more carry¬
ing forward of an old idea. That theBe steps', which rende
ed possible the great present commercial production of
phonograph records, simple as they now appear to he in the
light of after knowledge, amounted to Invention, is shown
in particular hy the fact that the process tfas xiot discov¬
ered until long after the ill for which it proved an effic¬
ient remedy had been in existence. Further, Claims ,2 and
5 carry a further limitation, which is not anticipated, hy
the prior art, and which is necessary in the practical-
carrying out of the invention, namely, that /the,'1 master 1 ...
record, sub-master and duplicate records ehbuld,1 be suoceBf-
ively smaller and of finer pitch. Therefore,^ it is thought
that the claims are patentable and allowance of - all ojf thu
same is respectfully requested.
Respectfully submitted. ' ' \j
THOMAS A. EDISON
By _ /
His Attorney
1 ■; \
Orange, New Jersey
February , 190?
Inoloaed find copy of deoialon thia day rendered hy the
Examiner b- in-Chief in the ex parts oabo of cTTurtM/LJ) . $ .
By direction of the CommiBB loner:
Very respectfully,
Appeal llo. 1660. U. S. Patent Office, March 1909.
Before the Examiners-in-chief, on Appeal.
Application of Thomas A. Edison for a patent for an
improvement in .Process of Duplicating Phonograph Records, filed
November 3, 1903. Serial Ho. 179,716.
Kr. Prank L. Dyer for appellant.
Thi3 i3 an appeal from the action of the examiner rejecting
claims 1, 2 and 3 on the following references:
Amet, May 14, 1095, No. 539,212;
Edison, Sep. 11, 1900, Ho. 657,527;
" ?eb. 5, 1001, Ho. 667,662.
Claim 1 is fairly representative of the appealed claims
and is as follows:
"1. ihe process of nultiplying sound records, which con-
si3ts in producing a suitable master, forming a matrix or mold
therefrom, molding a plurality of sub-masters from said mold,
forming a sub-matrix or sub-mold from each of said sub-masters,
ana then molding duplicate sound records from each of said sub¬
matrices or sub-molds, whereby a plurality of duplicate sound
records can be obtained simultaneously and the production there¬
of is not limited by the life of the molds in which they are
formed, substantially as set forth."
It is old in the art cited to make records by forming'
the matrix from the master and molding records from the matrix.
The subject matter of thiB application comprises in addition to this
old series of steps the Intermediate step of molding a plurality
of sub-masters, forming corresponding matrices and reproducing the
records from the latter. In other words, a plurality of matrices
are obtained indirectly from the same master by means of sub-masters'
and employed instead of the original matrices, thus obviating the
necessity of makings a plurality of masters. The sub-masters are
produced from the master in the same way that records are produced
in the prior art from the master, and records are made from the
I
1660,
sub-masters precisely 0.3 In the prior art from the masters.
/ It is pointed out by the examiner that commercial records
J are commonly used to make matrices for the production of duplicates,
! which practice seems to us to involve the very process here claimed,
^ it being immaterial, patentably, whether one or a plurality of
secondary matrices are employed.
Again, in Edison Ho. 657,527 is described the production
of duplicates of the master for the purpose of reproduction of record^,
though by a different method. There would seem to be no invention
jv.in carrying this step into the molded record art. Appellant argues,
however, that in molding sub-mastors as distinguished from other
processes of reproduction it is necessary to make the master larger
to allow for shrinkage, but this is well known and the remedy like¬
wise.. In Edison, Ho. 667,662 it is said the master must be larger
or of coarser pitch than the desired record to allow for shrinkage.
Since applicant must get to his final product in two molding steps
he must, of course, allow for two shrinkages instead of one and
make his master of corresponding pitch.
V/e cannot see any invention, in view of the prior art,
either in the conception of providing the plurality of sub-masters
or in the method of carrying the conception into execution.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OPPICE
Thomas A. Edison
IMPROVED PROCESS OE DUPLI¬
CATING PHONOGRAPH RECORDS
Piled November 3, 1903
Serial No. 179,716
)
j
) Room No. 379.
f
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS
SIR:
I hereby appeal to the Commissioner
in person from the decision of the Principal Examiner
in the matter of my application for Letters Patent for
an IMPROVED PROCESS OP DUPLICATING PHONOGRAPH RECORDS,
filed November 3, 1903, Serial No. 179,716. The follow¬
ing are assigned as reasons of appeal :-
1. The Examiners-in-Chief erred in affirming the
decision of the Primary Examiner, rejecting the claims.
2. The Examiners-in-Chief erred in holding the
olairas void of Invention in view of the prior art.
3. The ExaminerB-in-Chief erred in following the
statement of the Examiner that "commercial records are
oommonly used to make matrices for the production of
duplicates", and. holding that such apractioe involves the
process here claimed.
(1)
4. The ExaminerB-ln-Chief erred, in holding that a
step of the process described in applicant's patent No.
657*527 oould he oarried into the process of applicant's
present application without invention.
An oral hearing is requested. It is noted
that applicant's attorney will he in Washington from
April 9th to 12th Inclusive, and would he glad to have
the hearing set for one of those dateB if possible.
Very respectfully,
THOMAS A. EDISON
Attorney.
Orange, N. J.
March 22, 1910.
y
i
Mar oh 22, 19X0
Hon. Commissioner of Patents,
Washington, D. C.
Sir:
I anoloso herewith appeal to the Commissioner in
person in the application of Thomas A. Edison IMPROVED
PROCESS OP DUPLICATING PHONOGRAPH RECORDS, filed November '
3* 1903, Serial No. 179,716. I also enclose check for
§20.00 signed by Dyer Smith covering the fee for the
appeal.
Very respectfully,
DS/JS
Eno.
2 — 201.
The hearings will oommenoe at | ten j- o ' clock, and as soon as
the argument in one case is concluded the succeeding oase wfAl
be taken up.
If any party, or his attorney, shall &ot appear when the
case is called, his right to an oral hearing will be regarded
as waived.
The time allowed for arguments is as follows:
Ex parte cases, thirty minutes;
Motions, thirty minutes, each side;
Interference appeals, final hearing, one hour each side.
By special leave, obtained before the argument is commenced,
the time may be extended.
The appellant shall have the iright to open and conclude in
interference . cases , and in such <<ase a f.ull and fair opening
must be made.
Briefs in interference appeals must be filed in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 147.
Respeotfully ,
Mr. Walter Miller,
26 Linden Place,
Orange, K.J.
Bear Sir:
Enclosed herewith find affidavit for your
signature. Kindly make any oorrections which you think
necessary and return to me the first thing tomorrow
morning.
IH THE TOUTED STATES PATENT OFFICE
Thomas A. Edison
PROCESS OF DUPLICATING
PHONOGRAPH RECORDS
Filed Nov. 3, 1903
Serial No. 179,716
AFFIDAVIT OF WAITER H. HILLER
State of New York )
: ss.
County of New York )
WALTER H. HILLER, being duly sworn, deposes
and says aB follows: I am of mature age, reside at
Orange, New Jorsey and am Kanager of the Recording Depart¬
ment of the National Phonograph Company. For some time
prior to the invention of the process upon whioh the
above entitled application waB filed, the National Phono¬
graph Company had found it necessary to have eaoh Bingor
or performer make a number of original records or master
records from whioh matrioes wore made, in whioh matrices
the duplicate records intended for commercial sale were
then molded. For some time before the invention described
in Mr. Edison's application above identified, eaoh singer
was required to make five or six master records, and
(1)
shortly hof ore the invention the business of the National
Phonograph Company had. grown to nsuoh an extent that a
singer was sometimes required to make ten or even more
master records. As quite a number of trials were necess¬
ary in order to obtain one perfect master reoord, the
making of five or six or more masters required a groat
deal of effort on the performer's part with consequent
deterioration in the quality of the recordB last made.
Also, in the case of public men and others, records of
who Be voices were desired, it was found impossible to
secure the requisite number of masters in order to supply
the demand. Hence, the new process described in Mr.
Edison's application above identified, by which the re¬
quired number of duplicates were formed with the necessity
of making only a single perfeot master and matrix by the
use of a plurality of sub-matrloes and sub-molds made
from the main mold, was found to overcome an almost in¬
tolerable situation and proved just the thing wo were all
looking for. This process has been uBed continuously
by the National Phonograph Company since the time of itB
invention, the old method having been entirely discarded.
I have been continuously in charge of the making of rec¬
ords for the national Phonograph Company and the other
Edison companies sinoo a time long before the date of Mr.
Edison's invention and have always been quite familiar
with the conditions of tho trade. Therefore, I oan and
do say from my own knowledge that tho improved process
described in Mr, Edison's application Serial Mo. 179,716
(2)
has been a great coranerolal success ever since ita adoption
hy the National Phonograph Company and is absolutely
necessary to the National Phonograph Company for the
production of the large number of duplicate records made
by them each month, and that further the conditions whioh
I have described and whioh the adoption of the invention
overcame had existed for a considerable length of time
before the invention without remedy, during which time
considerable experimenting was done by Mr. Edison's
assistants with a view to improving the situation. As
far as I know, the process described in Mr. Edison's
application was never practiced by any one until it was
reduced to practice under Mr. Edison's direction some time
prior to the filing of the application above reforred to.
The business of tho National Phonograph Company waB grow¬
ing all the time at the period of which I speak, but it
certainly must have been a number of months before the
invention of Mr. Edison's process that singers and per¬
formers were required to make five or six master records
for each selection in order that a sufficient number of
molds might be had.
Sworn to and subscribed before me
this day of , 191O.
1
IN THE TOUTED STATES PATENT OPPICE
ThomaB A. Edison
PROCESS OP DUPLICATING
PHONOGRAPH RECORDS
Piled Nov. 3, 1903
Serial No. 179,716
)
)
j
)
Room No. 379.
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OP PATENTS
SIR:
In order that the specification and
claims of this application may he presented in a clean
draft and all in one paper for consideration hy the
Commissioner in the appeal to him from the decision of
the Board of Examiners-in-Chief rejecting the claims,
please amend hy cancelling the application and claims and
substituting the following whioh is a verbatim copy of
the speoifioation and claims now standing in the case:
SPEGIPIOATION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
BE IT KNOWN that I, Thomss A. Edi¬
son, of Llewellyn Park, grange, in the County of Essex,
State of New Jersey, have invented certain improvements in
the Process of Duplicating Phonograph Reoords (Case No.
1,119), of whioh the following is a description:
(1)
My invention relates to an improved process for
producing duplicate phonograph records from matrioes or
molds. Heretofore suoh records have been produced by
firBt making a suitable master, forming a matrix or
mold around said master, removing said master and then
molding the duplicates successively by means of said mold.
While it is sometimes possible to remove the master with¬
out injury from the mold so that it can be used for the
production of another or other moldB, it requires ex¬
treme care and there is alwayB danger of injury to the
surface of the laaster, whereby it becomes unfit for
further use. Inasmuch as the delicate surface of the
mold thus produced almost inevitably becomes scratched
or marred at some time during continued use, the life
of the mold is limited and therefore the number of du¬
plicates which can be produced from the mold is limited.
If one desires to obtain additional duplicates, it
will be necessary to construct another mold, and if the
master has boen injured or destroyed it will, of course,
be necessary to produce another master. This in many
cases will be impossible, because one may not be able
to secure the services of the person or perBonB who
produoed the original master, their voices may have
changed, or other reasons may prevent the production
of a second master.
Furthermore, it frequently happens that
there is a great demand for a particular selection which
it is impossible to fill by the production of dupli¬
cates from a single mold, beoause of the time necessar¬
ily consumed in producing each duplicate. In order,
therefore, to overcome these difficulties, it has been
(2)
the practioe In thiB art to produce several master rec¬
ords at the same time which shall he as nearly alike
as possible , so that a plurality of molds can he pro¬
duced, one from each master. This process is objection¬
able, however, because the expense of producing master
reoords of artistic quality is very great, requiring
a large number of trials, since the slightest blast or
other flaw in the record necessitates the discarding
thereof. furthermore, it is impossible to produce two
masters which are exactly alike.
The object of the present invention is a
process whereby a practically unlimited number of sound
records can be produced, each of which is a duplicate
of a single maBter; whereby any desired number of molds
can be produced at any time for molding said records;
whereby any desired number of exactly similar duplicate
records oan be molded simultaneously; and whereby a
permanent and enduring reoord of the master may be ob¬
tained and preserved for the future production of such
molds and records. In oarrying my invention into ef¬
fect, I prooeed substantially as follows:
A suitable master record is f IrBt made on a re¬
cording machine having a specially ooarse thread feed-screw
and, if the master is sufficiently perfect for the purpose
a mold or matrix is made therefrom by any well known pro¬
cess, as, for oxample, that Indicated in my patent No.
713,209, of November 11, 1902. The prooess by which this
matrix or mold is made is preferably one by whioh the
matrix or mold will be provided with a non-oxidiaing recori
surface, Buoh as gold or nickel, so that it will be very
(5)
pennanen-fc. prom the matrix or mold thus made I obtain
any desired nxuabor, Bay a dosen or more, of duplicate
records or sub-masters by any suitable process. For
example, a blank may be shaved very true so as to fit
accurately within the matrix or mold, and be then expanded
into engagement with the record surface of the matrix or
mold by boat and pressure, as I describe in my said patent*,
or, instead,, a molten wax-like material may be cast in the
matrix or mold, as I describe in my patent Ho. 667,662 of
February 5, 1901; or, finally, the matrix or mold may be
dipped in a suitable molten, coagulable, wax-like material,
which forms a coagulated layer of the desired thickness
thereon, as described in patent No. 683,615 granted
October 1, 1901, to Hiller and Aylsworth. By whatever
process that may be followed an accurate sub-master will
be secured, the bore of which need not bo finished. I
aim to secure oubmaBters in this way which shall corres¬
pond accurately with masters no?/ obtained by recording
in the first instance thereon in special recording ma¬
chines; and, consequently, the original or main mold or
matrix should be much longer than the record which it car-
ries, and the pitch of the record groove therein should
be so selected that when the submasters have contracted
longitudinally, their pitch shall correspond with that
now used in masters made directly in recording machines.
This latter pitch, with the materials now used, is ninety-
eight and two-thirdB threads per inoh, but the pitch will
vary with the composition employed and with the prooeBS
followed, as to temperature, manipulations otc.
(4)
Haring obtained, a number of cubmasters in this
way which correspond accurately with masters as now ob¬
tained by recording directly on the blank in a suitable
recording machine, the main matrix or mold may be filed
away. It will not be required for further use during
the life of the sub-molds whose production I will now
describe, but will be available at any future time for
the production of additional submasters from which submolds
may be made. The submolds cr matrices are produced from
the submasters by any suitable process, for instance,
those indicated in my patent Ho. 713,209, above referred to
and from these submolds I prooeed to obtain duplicates in
the usual way, as indicated in the several patents to
which attention ha3 been directed. The duplicates so
obtained, when finished on the interior and onds, are
commercially salable duplicates, comparing favorably with
those now secured in the art from a matrix or mold made
from a master obtained directly by recording in the first
instance in a special recording machine. These dupli¬
cates, when they roach thoir normal temperatures, will
possess the standard pitch of thread of one hundred per
inch, and will, therefore, bo capable of effective use
in standard reproducing machines of the phonograph type.
It is obvious that aocordlng to my invention the
number of duplicate phonograph records whioh can be
obtained from a single master is multiplied. That is to
say, suppose that the life of each mold is limited to
on© thousand operations - then, acoording to the methods
heretofore known, we can produce only one thousand
duplicate copies of the original master, assuming the
(5)
same to have been destroyed in making the molds. ThiB
is the limit to the number of duplicates which can be
produced from the maBter in question and these duplicates
can only be produced successively. According to my in¬
vention, however, it will be possible to produce a
thousand sub-masters from the main mold, to produce a sub¬
mold from each sub-master, thereby obtaining a thousand
sub-molds, and then produoe from these sub-molds one
million duplicate sound records, eaoh of which is a copy
of the original master, and in the same space of time
that one thousand records were formerly produced.
Another advantage of my invention is that the
molding of the sub-masters can be done with great oare
by the most skillful workmen so that the main mold will
not be injured and the molding from the sub-molds can be
done very rapidly, without much care, or by comparatively
unskilled persons, because a sub-mold can be replaoed
at any time without very great expense.
Reference is hereby made to the accompanying
drawing which shows diagrammatioally a multiplication of
duplicate sound records (standard pitch) from a single
master record, according to the process herein described
and claimed.
Having now described my invention, what I claim
as new therein and desire to seoure by letters patent is
as follows:
1. The prooess of multiplying sound recordB, which
consists in producing a suitable master, forming a matrix
or mold therefrom, molding a plurality of sub-masters
from said mold, forming a sub-matrix or sub-mold from eaoh
(6)
of said sub-masters, and then molding duplicate Bound
records from each of said sub-matrioes or sub-molds,
whereby a plurality of duplicate sound records can be
obtained simultaneously and the production thereof is not
limited by the life of the molds in which they are formed,
substantially as set forth.
2. The process of multiplying sound reoords, which
consists in producing a suitable, master having a record
groove of abnormally coarse pitch, forming a matrix or
mold therefrom, molding from said matrix or mold a plural¬
ity of sub-masters of less pitch than that of said master,
forming a sub-matrix or sub-mold from each of said sub¬
masters, and then; molding from said sub-matrices or sub¬
molds duplicate sound reoords of standard pitch, which is
lesB than that of the sub-masters, whereby a plurality
of duplicate sound reoords can be obtained simultaneously
from the same master and the production thereof is not
limited to the life of the molds in which they are direot-
ly formed, substantially as set forth.
3. The process of multiplying Bound records, which
consists in producing a suitable master of coarse pitoh,
forming a matrix or mold therefrom of the same pitoh,
molding a plurality of sub-maaters from said mold of a
smaller pitch, forming a sub-matrix or Bub-mold from each
of Baid sub-masters and of the same pitoh, and then mold¬
ing duplicate sound reoords of a still smaller pitoh from
each of said sub-matrices or sub-molds, whereby a plural¬
ity of duplicate sound reoords can be obtained simultan¬
eously and the production thereof is not limited by the
life of the mold in which they are formed, substantially
(7)
as set forth.
Respectfully,
THOMAS A. EDISON
By
His Attorney.
Orange, N. J.
April Q> , 1910.
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OPE ICE
Thomas A. Edison
PROCESS OP DUPLICATING
PHONOGRAPH RECORDS
Piled Nov. 3, 1903
Serial No. 179,716
)
)
: Before the Commiss-
) loner of Patents in
: Person.
brief por appellant.
This is an appeal from the decision of the
Board of Examiners-in-Chief affirming the decision of
the Examiner in finally rejecting the claims of this
application.
Tho claims, the rejection of which is hereby
appealed from, are as follows:
1. The process of multiplying sound records, which
consists in producing a suitable master, forming a matrix
or mold therefrom, molding a plurality of sub-masters from
said mold, forming a Bub-matrix or sub-mold from each of
said sub-masters, and then molding duplicate sound records
from eaoh of said sub-matrices or sub-molds, whereby a
plurality of duplicate sound records can be obtained
simultaneously and the production thereof is not limited
oy the life of the molds in which they are formed, sub¬
stantially as set forth.
2. The process of multiplying sound records, which
consists in producing a suitable master having a record
groove of abnormally coarse pitoh, forming a matrix or
mold therefrom, molding from said matrix or mold a plur¬
ality of Sub-masters of lesB pitoh than that of said '
master, forming a sub-matrix or Bub-mo Id from eaoh of said
Bub-masterB, and then molding from said sub-matrices or
sub-molds duplicate sound records of standard pitoh, which
1b leBB than that of the sub-masters, whereby a plurality
(1)
of duplicate sound rooords etui be obtained eimultaneously
from tlio same master and the production thereof is not
limited to the life of the molds in which they are direot-
ly formed, substantially as set forth.
J. The process of multiplying sound records, which
consists in producing a suitable master of coarse pitoh,
forming a matrix or mold therefrom of the same pitoh,
molding a plurality of Bub-raasters from said mold of a
smaller pitch, forming a sub-matrix or sub-mold from each
of said sub-masters and of the same pitch, and then mold¬
ing duplicate sound records of a still smaller pitch from
each of said sub-matrioes or Bub-molds, whereby a plurality
of duplicate sound records con be obtained simultaneously,
and the production thereof is not limited by the life of
the mold in which they are formed, substantially as set
forth.
The references relied upon aro patents to
Edison, #667,662, Feh. 5, 1901, (181-16)
Edison, #657,527, Sept. 11, 1900 (181-16)
Anot , #539,212, May 14, 1895, (l8l-l6)
BTATEOTHT OF TOT CASE
This invention is a simple one, but one of con¬
siderable importance. It consists in a process by which
molded duplicate phonograph records may be commercially
produced in large numbers and are so produced at the manu¬
facturing worts in which the appellant is chiefly in¬
terested. The invention consists in a process which dis¬
tinguishes from known processes hy the interposition of
new steps therein. The question to he decided is whether
the process evolved by the introduction of these new steps
is patentahly different from the old processes, that is,
whether the addition of the new steps amounts to invontion
or not. By the addition of these now Bteps, a rapid
multiplication of the original phonograph rooord is
achieved in the production of duplicate records. These
(2)
atops are referred to In the first of the claims, for
example, whorein after the statement that a suitable master
record is first produced and a matrix or mold formed there¬
from, it is then stated that a plurality of sub-masters
are molded from said mold and a Bub-matrix or sub-mold
is formed from eaoh of said sub-masters.. She duplicate
sound rooords which form a final product of the process
are molded from each of the sub-matrioeB.
Previous to appellant's Invention on which this
application was filed November 3, 1903, the process of
forming duplicate molded phonograph reoords was as follows:
A master reoord was made by a singer or other performer
singing into the horn of the recording phonograph, whereby
the original or master record was cut in the Boft surface
of the wax record. Prom this a matrix or mold of metal
was made by well known processes, the sound record being
carried in relief , that is, reversed upon the bore of the
matrix. The duplicate sound reoords which wore to be
sold were then molded directly within this matrix by one
of several well known prooeBses, which duplicate record
was removed from the mold by cooling the record sufficient¬
ly to contract the same so that it might be withdrawn from
the mold longitudinally. In this way a number of reoordB,
perhaps one thousand, might be produced successively from
the matrix. The matrix, however, deteriorated during the
process from friction and use, the sound reoord being ex¬
ceedingly delicate, so that at the end of possibly one
thousand duplications the mold was unfit for further use.
ThiB prooess was well enough for a small output of records,
but it obviously was entirely unsuitable for the produc¬
tion of reoords upon the tremendous scale to which appell-
(3)
ant's business had developed some time before the concep¬
tion of the invention upon which this application was
filed.
This situation could be relieved in a number of
ways. A numbor of matrioes might be formed from the
original master record and duplicates molded from each
of these matrices. Shis, however, could not be depended
upon, since the original or master record which was formed
of quite soft wax was liable to injury in removing it
from the mold, and honce, no one master record oould be
depended upon to form more than one porfeot matrix. Or
again, a number of original master reoords might be formed
by causing the singer to repeat his performance a number
of times. This was the practice v/hioh was adopted at
appellant' 3 work3 before tho date of this invention. The
singer had to make a good many trials before he succeeded
in producing a sound record which waB sufficiently perfect
to serve as a master. In the case of a popular selection
the singer would have to repeat his performance over and
over again. Some time prior to appellant's invention,
eaoh performer at the Edison Phonograph Works made five
or six reoordB of eaoh selection, v/hioh necessitated sing¬
ing the pieoe a great many times. Shortly bofore appell¬
ant's invention, the demand for duplicate phonograph rec¬
ords grew enormously. A large number of duplicates had
periodically to be produced in a short time, since new
selections are put on the market once every month. In
this limited time it was impossible to make a sufficient
even
number of duplicates from/rive or six master records and
matriosB formed therefrom, and ofteh-as many-as 10 or 15
(4)
original records had to he produoed by the performer of
a popular selection in order to meet tho demand for that
record. It is, of course, obvious that in a task of suoh
magnitude tho singer's voice deteriorated and the differ¬
ent master records produced would not ho all of equal
excellence. It is also obvious that a high-priced artist
of the calihi’o of Slezak and Caruso could not ho expected
to devote time and onorgy to making such an enormous number
of trials for the production of one given selection.
In spite of the imperfections of the practioe
above described, no bet-cer procedure was known until
appellant's invention, and this practice was carried on
prior to that time at appellant's works and in the works
of all other sound record manufacturers to the heat of
appellant's knowledge and belief. To meet this situation,
appellant conceived the idea of a process in which a cingle
perfect master record might be duplicated by a rapid
multiplication. As stated, up to this time a thousand
records for example had been formed from one matrix made
from a perfect master, or even fdf teen thousand duplicates
had been fanned from fifteen matrices formed from fifteen
masters more or less perfect. Appellant's invention
introduced a multiplying factor into the proooss. A
plurality of perfect records tenned sub-masters are molded
with great care from the one perfect matrix formed from the
original master reoord. As stated, there might be a
thousand of these sub-master records made. Prom each of
these sub-masters one matrix or mold known as a sub-
matrix is made. Then from eaoh one of tho thousand sub-
matrioos a thousand commercial duplicate records might, be
formed or one million records in all, the thousand sub-
(5)
matrices all perhaps being used in the molding of dupli¬
cate commercial reoordB at the same time.
NOVELTY 03? THE INVENTION shown by the
HE3?ERBHC3j!S CITED
This result is not even hinted at in the prior
art, an examination of which will disclose the fact the
the insertion of the multiplying factor into the process,
the formation of a plurality of sub-masters and sub-matri¬
ces from which the duplicates are to be formed, waB origi¬
nal with appellant.
PAT33HT TO 35DISON BO. 667.662
Edison's prior patent Ho. 667,662 merely shows
one of the processes known at the date of the present in¬
vention for forming duplicates from an original record.
In this process a mold was made from a master record and
the duplicate records molded in this mold by introducing
molten material into the mold around a core, allowing the
molten material to set, contracting the said material, and
removing the record thus formed together with the core
from the mold and separating the oore from the molded
record. The 3bcaminer sayB in his statement that the
record bo formed is identical with what applicant toms
his Bub-master, and that invention cannot be involved in
merely duplicating the duplicate records so made. More
will be said upon tills point hereafter.
PATENT TO EDISON NO. 657.527
Patent to Edison No. 657,527 provides for the
making from the original master record of a single raetall-
(6)
Iio auplioate reoora by electro-deposition upon the inter¬
ior of a matrix formea from the original record. The
metallic duplicate record so formed 1b then used as a
master reoora in plaoe of the original wax master, the
patent contemplating the production of duplicate reoords
from this metallic master record by a process of mechani¬
cal copying similar to the well known pantograph. Only
a single metallic duplioate record was thus formed from
the wax master, since the mold which was formed from the
wax master and in which the metallic duplicate was made
had to be dissolved in soid and entirely deotroyed in
order that the metallio master record might bo extracted
from the interior thereof. It would be impossible to
make a plurality of sub-matrices from this metallic masted,
sinoe they could not bo separated therefrom without des¬
troying the metallic mastor, and no suoh idea was in the
mind of the patentee. Thus this patent does not dis-
olose appellant's multiplying step any more than does
the Edison patent first discussed. Tho Examiner states
that this patent discloses one way of duplicating from a
duplicate. The hoard of Examiners-in-Chief also state
that there would seem to be no invention in carrying this
step into the molded record art. More will be Baid on
this point hereafter, but it may here bo noted that it
would be impossible to carry this step into the molded
record art from the disclosure of the patent olted, sinoe
only one metallic duplicate record could be formed in
accordance with the patent, and henae it would bo impos¬
sible to form a plurality of sub-matrices or sub-masters
from either of whioh duplicate records might be formed
with multiplication.
(7)
PATBNT TO AMBIT HO. 539.212
Patent to .Amet No. 539,212, whicli is the remain¬
ing reference in the case, merely discloses the fact that
it is old to obtain copies of eh original record by a
process of meohonical transference, the movements of the
stylus which tracks the record groove of the original or
master record being reproduced with amplification by a
system of linkages -connected to the recording stylus whioh
travels over a rotating phonograph blank. By this means
a copy of the original record is made, whioh oopy is somo¬
v/hat larger than the original record because of the lever¬
age, that is, the fact that levers are used in the con¬
nections between the two styluses. Shis does not seem to
be at all pertinent to the invention in issue, and the
Board of Examlners-in-Chief do not allude to it in their
opinion. The Hxaminer in his statement says that Amet
discloses an enlarged record from which duplicates of
normal size may be made. This is thought to have nothing
to do with the issue.
consideration ot Jim claims
Considering first Claim 1, whioh is In terms
the broadest of the claims, it will be noted that a plural¬
ity of sub-masters are molded from the one main mold,
which in the art is known as the "mother" mold and sub-
matrices or sub-molds formed from each of said Bub-masters,
and the duplicate sound records molded from eaoh of the
sub-matrices or sub-moldB. It is evident that none of
the references discloses all the steps of this process,
nor can any or all of the references be combined to pro¬
vide the steps of the prooess.
(8)
ERROR ON Tlffl EXAMINER AND THE BOARD CONCERNINQ
DUELICATIOH OF COMMERCIAL RECORDS
In the opinion of the Board of Examiners- in-
Chief ooours the following: "It Js pointed out by the
Examiner that commercial records are commonly used to
make matrioes, which practice seems to us to involve the
process here claimed, it being immaterial patentably
whether one or a plurality of secondary matrices are
employed." This statement, as broadly worded, iB
thought to be an error both in the statement of fact and
conclusion of law. It is not the common praotice, nor
is it possible to buy on the market duplicate phonograph
records, that is, cylindrical sound reoordB, form matrices
therefrom, and then form duplicate records in Baid ma¬
trices which may be used as duplicate records adapted
for sale. This is because the duplicate record which
might be obtained and used as a master for the production
of a mold and duplication therefrom has a record groove
having a standard number of threads per inch, say 100
threads per inch, and the duplicate records formed there¬
from would have a greater number of threads per inch,
about lOl-l/j threads per inch, because qf the shrink¬
age of the wax in molding and extraction of the record.
Accordingly, the record so made could not be repro¬
duced upon any of the existing talking machines whioh
are adapted to play reoords having 100 or 200 threads per
inch. Even if it were true that the praotice referred
to by the Examiner were possible, it would not involve
(9)
appellant's Invention oinoe it would merely involve the
duplication of one duplicate of a reoord, and not the
duplication of a plurality of duplicates of a reoord,
such as the plurality of sub-masters provided by appell¬
ant, whereby a multiplication of the reoord is achieved.
It may be that in the case of disc sound records, a
duplicate sound reoord may be copied in the manner
referred to by the Examiner, but aB stated, the process
under consideration would not there be involved, since
a duplicator would presumably make a mold of only one
duplicate of a given reoord, and not a plurality of
molds from a plurality of duplicates of the same record,
from which multiplied commercial duplicates might be ob¬
tained. There is no suggestion in the record that
this has ever been done, and it is thought to be not
immaterial, as stated by the Board, but decidedly
material patontably whether one or a plurality of second¬
ary matrices are employed.
Claims 2 and 3 point out even more distinctly
why it is impossible that the invention be anticipated
by tho praotice of duplicating duplicates referred to
by the Examiner, since in Claims 2 and 3, a master
record is stated to be formed which has a reoord groove
of abnormally coarse pitch, the mold or matrix formed
therefrom, which is the "mother" mold, a plurality of
sub-masters of Iosb pitch than that of Bald master
molded from the mother mold or matrix, a sub-matrix or
(10)
Bub-mold formed from each of said sub-masters, and the
duplicate sound records formed from Bald sub-matrices,
the duplicate sound records being of standard pitch,
which is less than that of the sub-masters. As a
matter of fact, as is pointed out in appellant's brief
before the Examiners- in-Chief , the duplicate records
contemplated by appellant's invention have a pitch of
one hundred threads per inch, the sub-masters, from
which the duplicate records are formed, have a pitch
somewhat coarser than one hundred threads to the inch,
or approximately ninety-eight and two-thirds threads
per inch, and the original master itself has a still
coarser pitch of approximately ninety seven and one-
third threads per inch. As has been stated by the
Board, the patent to EdiBon No. 667,662 states that
the master must be larger or of coarser pitch than the
desired record to allow for shrinkage, and since
appellant must get to his final product in two mold¬
ing steps, he must, of course, allow for two shrink¬
ages instead of one, and must make his molds of corres¬
ponding pitch. The inclusion of theBe limitations in
Claims 2 and 5, however, clearly aid in differentiating
the same from any suoh practioe as mentioned by the
Examiner, namely, that of duplicating a duplicate
record, since appellant does not duplicate an ordinary
duplicate record, but a record of abnormally ooarse
(11)
I pitch, whioh oould not bo used as a oommeroial dupli-
Ioate. Henoo, the Btatomont of the Examiner that inso¬
far as tho claimed dovioes are concerned, appellant's
sub-master is nothing more than tho oommeroial dupli-
Icate record commonly sold on the market is inoorroot.
ERROR OR THE BXMINERS,IH_OHIEg AS TO
| EDI S OH PATENT HO. 657, 527.
It has already been pointed out that the
Examiners -in-Chief were in error in holding that patent
to Edison Ho. 657,527 might instruct an inventor in
the molded reoord art as to the proper way to proooed
to overcome tho difficulty which appellant met by the
invention in issue. Edison, in tho patent referred
to, formed a single metallic duplicate from the original
mold, and could form only one by the process dosoribed.
Erom this one metallic duplioate, commercial dupli¬
cates might be made by a process of mechanical trans¬
ference, such as shown in patent to Amet, Ho. 539,212,
but this v/ould givo absolutely no instruction to any
one desiring to increase the rapidity of production of
duplicates of molded records, as has been pointed out
above, on' page 7 of this brief.
(12)
INVENTIONS OF SIMILAR CHARACTER HAVE REPEATEDLY
BEEN HELD PATENTABLE.
It is thought that appellant's position will
now he dear to your Honor. The invention is a simple
one, hut it is novel, of great utility, and because of its
great commercial suooess and the fact that it v/as vainly
sought for a considerable length of time by different in¬
ventors and had not been discovered by any before appell¬
ant's invention* it is thought to be patentable. As to
the novelty of the process, it will be conceded that the
steps of providing a plurality of sub-masters and forming
sub-matrices therefrom have not been suggested by otherB.
The deoisions are, of course, uniform that the intro¬
duction of one new step into a process makes a new process
thereof. See Carnegie Steel Co. vs. Cambria Iron Co.,
C. D., 1902, 592, a decision of the U. S. Supreme Court,
and Ex parte Patterson, C. D. 1905, 230. As to the
utility of the process, the difficulties whioh appellant
and his manufacturing company experienced prior to this
invention have been noted above. If it is deemed desir¬
able, appellant can furnish affidavits on this point.
A few deoisions which are persuasive of the invention in
this oase may well be briefly called to your Honor's
attention.
In Carnegie Steel Co. vs. Cambria Iron Co.
referred to, the TJ. S. Supreme Court held that invention
was Involved in the JoneB process of mixing molten metal
to secure uniformity of the same preparatory to further
treatment, the novel step in the process involving the
(13)
!
use of a reservoir of large size in which the product of
a number of furnaces was mixed and. allowed to become uni¬
form, portions only of the composite molten contents of
the receptacle being removed, from time to time for further
treatment without entirely draining the reservoir. The
prior art Bhowed that it was old to provide similar
reservoirs, but no one had seen that such reservoirs
might be made sufficiently large and the process carried
out by the aid of the same to produce the result achieved
by the patentee. The Court considered that the fact that
a simple matter, had produced a great practical success,
demonstrated the patentability of the invention. As
the Court observed, a procoBB patent can only be antici¬
pated by a similar process. "It 1b not sufficient to
show a piece of mechanism by which the process might have
been performed." The Supreme Court defined the situation
as follows:
"It is true the Jones patent is a simple one
and in the light of present experience it Beems strange
that none of the expert stool makers who approached so
near the consummation of their desire, Bhould have failed
to take the final Btep which was needed to convert their
experiments into an assured success. This, however, is
but the common history of important Inventions, the sim¬
plicity of which seems to the ordinary observer to pre¬
clude the possibility of their involving an exerciBe of
the inventive faculty. The very fact that the attempt
which had been made to secure a uniformity of produot
seems to have been abandoned after the Jones invention
oarae into popular notice, is strong evidence tending to
show that this patent oontain$1something which was of
great value to the manufacturers of steel, and which en¬
titled Jones to the reward due to a successful inventor.1
It would seem that this situation was on all
fours with that presented by the present case, Appellant's
invention has achieved tremendous practical suoosbs, and
since his invention the former practice of manufacturing
(14)
molded duplicate records has been abandoned. As was well
stated by the Court in Goss Printing Press Co. v. Scott,
108 P. R. 253, on page 261
"It is not nearness to an unsolved problem, but
a solution of it, that secures practical results, and
benefits the publio to the extent of earning the grant
of a patent in return."
The Examiner seems to be of the opinion that
appellant's Invention amounts only to a duplication of
steps or a change in degree, which oannot amount to in¬
vention. However, it is well settled that a change in
proportion or size or degree, or a duplication of Bteps
or parts does involve invention when a new function is
attained or a new or better result obtained, or the same
result attained in a more economical and efficient manner.
In the case of Goss Printing Press Co. vs. Soott, above
olted, an invention in printing presses was held to be
patentable, in which, apparently, the patentee only
took the presses which he found standing side by side and
banked them one upon another, it being contended that the
change involved was a reconstruction, rearrangement and
duplioation. The Court helii that this change was one,
which though simple, produced a vastly more .efficient
result and was accordingly patentable. As the Court
stated:
"The test in such cases is not whether dupli¬
cation exists, but whether duplication produces, not more
duplication of product or funotlon, but a new unitary
additional, result, and not the mere aggregate of prior,
separate mechanism." Parker v. Hulme, 1 Pish. Pat.
Cas. 44, Ped. Cas. Ho. 10,740.
Appellant's invention produces a new result,
namely, the production of a great number of better reoordB
in a shorter time than was previously possible.
In the case of Zinsser v. Kremor, 39 P. R.,
Ill, the Court stated:
(15)
" ’To think it way safely ho said that wherever a
change in the method of making an article of manufacture
produces a different and bonoficial reBUlt, although the
difforenoe conoiote only in improving or cheapening ’the
article, and the change and its advantages had not b^eii
seen or made by others (than the patentoe) interested in
seeing and making it, there is sufficient evidence of ' •
invention to sustain a prooo3s patent. Here the efJeeV
of the change is to improve and also to cheapen. ” V
' i
Appellant's invention both cheapens and improves
the product by the addition of the new step in the process,
The remarks of the Court in the oase of Guarantee
Trust & Safe Deposit Co. vs. Hew Haven Gas Light Co., 39
F.R. 368 are also pertinent. In that oase, in a process
for making gas, the substitution of the fixing ohamber of
one patent for the fixing ohamber of another patent where¬
by an Improved result was attained was considered patent-
able invention. The Court eaid:
I" But the inquiry is whether the adaptability of
the Siemane superheater to fix the gas of the Harknbse
patent was self-evident to the intelligence cf those
skilled in the art. If it had been, why waB not the sub¬
stitution made? ***««♦* **««•» *** + <.***
If the making of this change had been an obvious thing,
falling within tho range of ordinary meohanioal adapta¬
tion, it is probable that those skilled in the art would
have sought to avail themselves of its advantages; yet,
as appears by tho prior patents in the reoord, the more
expensive method of fixing the gas in retorts heated by
external firea was everywhere followed. The various
manufacturers in this country who were making gas accord¬
ing to the Teosie du Motay process, and using the oxter-
nally fired retort, did not discover what' is now asserted
was an obvious thing. The fact that the older organi¬
zations which it 1b now olaimed were susceptible of being
modified by mere meohanioal skill into the apparatus of
the patent remained without any suoh modification until
the patentee made it, and his improvement when made was
eo useful and valuable as to commend itself at onoe to
those skilled in the art to whioh it relates, is suffi¬
cient to resolve any doubt whether the improvement embodies
invention in favor of the patent. "
In the matter of Ex parte Ralteyer et al. C.,D. ,
1891, 302, a prooeee for preparing Portland Cement was
(16)
held to he patentable because of a new process step which
consisting in testing a portion of the mass after the
materials are mixed in order to determine proportions.
The then Commissioner of Patents quoted Cochrane vs.
Deener, 94 U. S. 780, and held that one of the stops of
the process being novel for the purposes in hand, novelty
was given to the process considered as a whole. He
said:
"The process in question is a very simple one;
but simplicity does not negative invention. That the
results of this simple process are useful in a high degree
sufficiently appears. This marked utility in result,
coupled with this novel process, iB in my opinion suffic¬
ient evidence of patentability. "
As to the point that a change in degree, such as
the substitution of a plurality of sub-raaBters and sub¬
matrices for a common duplicate record and matrix formed
therefrom for the production therefrom of commercial dupli¬
cate records, may amount to invention where an improved
result is attained, attention may also be directed to
Wostinghouse Air Brake Co. vs. Christensen Engineering Co.,
123 E. R., 306, in which the change in size of a train
pipe air passage was the only new feature, and the oase of
Weston Electrical Instrument Co. vs. Stevens, 134 E. R.,
574, in which the only change was a different proportion¬
ing of the coilB of an electrical measuring device, where¬
by an improved result was attained. The patent waB
sustained in eaoh oase.
Appellant's process is novel, useful, and in¬
volves invention, and hence the patent prayed for should
be granted. The novelty is shown by the fact that the
(1?)
I references fail to disclose a process in which duplicate
sound records are molded by providing a plurality of sub¬
molds and the so-oalled sub-matrioes formed from a single
perfect mold and from which duplicate records are formed
with gr 
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11